Preamble

The House met at Eleven o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Orders of the Day — PONIES BILL

Not amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

Mr. Speaker: May I announce that the hon. Member for Gillingham (Mr. Burden) is looking after this Bill, deputising for the hon. Member for Manchester, Withington (Sir R. Cary). I am sure we are all very sorry that the illness of the hon. Member for Manchester, Withington prevents him from being present at this stage on a Bill to which he has paid so much devotion and attention.

Clause 1

RESTRICTION ON EXPORT OF PONIES.

11.6 a.m.

Mr. F. A. Burden: I beg to move Amendment No. 1, in page 1, leave out lines 10 to 19 and insert:
(4A) Subsections (1) and (2) of this section shall not apply to ponies, but, subject to the following provisions of this Act, it shall not be lawful to ship, or attempt to ship, any pony in any vessel from any port in Great Britain to any port outside the United Kingdom, the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man unless—

(a) the Minister or, in Scotland, the Secretary of State is satisfied that the pony is intended for breeding, riding or exhibition and is of not less value than £100 or, in the case of a pony not exceeding 12 hands in height, £70, or such other value in either case as may be prescribed by order of the Minister and the Secretary of State acting jointly; and
(b) immediately before shipment the pony has been individually inspected by a veterinary inspector and has been certified in writing by the inspector to be capable of being conveyed to the port to which it is to be shipped, and disembarked, without unnecessary suffering;

and, without prejudice to paragraph (b) of this subsection, a veterinary inspector shall not certify a poney to be capable of being

conveyed and disembarked as aforesaid if, being a mare, it is in his opinion heavy in foal, showing fullness of udder or too old to travel or, being a foal, it is in his opinion too young to travel." 
(b) in subsection (5) of section 37 thereof, after the word "examined" there shall be inserted the words "or inspected".

Mr. Speaker: As is my wont, I have published a list of selections of Amendments. With Amendment No. 1 we shall discuss the three sub-Amendments: In line 7, leave out '£70', and insert:
'other than a pony of the Shetland breed not exceeding 10½ hands in height, £70, or in the case of such a pony of the Shetland breed, £40,'
in line 7, leave out '£70' and insert:
'other than a pony of the Shetland breed not exceeding 10½ hands in height, £70, or in the case of such a pony of the Shetland breed, 5150';
and in line 8, leave out 'either case' and insert 'any of those cases'; and Amendment No. 2, in page 1, line 17, leave out '12' and insert 12·2'; and Amendment No. 3, in page 1, line 17, leave out '£70'and insert '£40'.

Mr. Burden: I am sure the whole House is grateful to you, Mr. Speaker, for drawing attention to the illness of my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Withington (Sir R. Cary). I am extremely sorry that his name is not attached to this Amendment. His illness is probably due to the zeal he has put into work on the Bill, indeed he collapsed on the very morning that the Committee sitting ended. He is now convalescing and his convalescence is not likely to be long. The greatest tonic that he could receive would be if the Bill could complete its stages today.
The main intention of Clause 1(a) is to prevent the export of ponies under stated values. It seeks to do this by adding certain requirements to Section 37 of the Diseases of Animals Act, 1950. Article 30 of the Export of Horses (Excepted Cases) Order, 1966 (No. 508) exempts virtually all ponies from the application of Section 37(1) of the 1950 Act, and therefore from the conditions in Section 37 as a whole. Thus, the Order would prevent Clause 1(a) of the Bill from applying to any but a small number of exported ponies.
The proposed Amendment is designed to overcome this difficulty and to allow the intention in Clause 1(a) to apply to all ponies. It would also remove from


veterinary inspectors responsibility for valuing exported ponies which they would not be able to discharge effectively. After discussion we realised that by requiring the Minister or Secretary of State to satisfy himself as to the value of a pony for export it would be possible to make other more satisfactory arrangements for valuations. This could be done by a bill of sale from the auctioneers or by the breeder or seller to the exporter. I do not see great difficulty about this and I am quite sure that it could be administered reasonably easily.
The other changes in the Amendment would achieve the replacement of the inspector's assessment of fitness of a pony for the stated export purpose by the requirement that the Minister shall be satisfied that it is intended for breeding, riding or exhibition. Most hon. Members would agree that this is an improvement on the original wording of the Bill. It would bring the requirement into line with existing subordinate legislation.
Amendment No. 2 transfers from Clause 3(a) and 3(b) to Clause 1 the welfare points relating to mares and foals. That means that the amended Clause 1 would cover all the welfare requirements, other than the rest requirements, which are dealt with later in the Bill. One of the most important features of the Bill is that mares heavy in foal should not be exported. The regulations for restricing the export of cattle which might calve or sheep which might produce lambs are strong. The export of such animals is prohibited. It is therefore right and proper that mares should receive the same protection.
In Clause 2, the opportunity has been taken to omit the requirement of specific age assessment which would be virtually impossible for any inspector to make with the necessary precision. Advice has been taken on this matter, and the British Veterinary Association is in full support of the removal of the requirement that the veterinary inspector should have imposed on him the task of determining exactly the age of a pony. The Association says that this is impossible. This is also the view of the establishment at Newmarket which was asked for advice. The Clause, as amended, would take care of this, so that age generally would replace the specific requirement on the vet to say that a particular age had been reached.
The Amendment also substitutes a provision to the effect that mares shall not be too old nor foals too young to travel. Most of us would agree that veterinary officers can and will take responsibility for ensuring that the intention in this part of the Bill is carried out. The working of the Bill, when an Act, will much depend on the interpretation put on it by the Ministry and the instructions sent out to veterinary inspectors. I have no doubt that the Ministry will ensure that the purpose of the Bill and the wishes of the House are fully taken into consideration in the recommendations which it may make to its veterinary inspectors.
It is proposed that the height criterion of ponies should be amended to 14·2 hands. This brings the measurement into line with the standard measurement for ponies. If the Amendment is carried, the Government will consider bringing existing subordinate legislation into line.
As so often happens with a Private Member's Bill, some of the drafting was faulty. I pay tribute to the help which we have received from officials at the Ministry with Amendment No. 1 which I believe will make the Bill more workable and carry out all that was desired by its original sponsor, my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Withington.

11.15 a.m.

Mr. Robert Maclennan: I should like to associate myself with the remarks which you, Mr. Speaker, made about the hon. Member for Manchester, Withington (Sir R. Cary). We all hope that he will return to good health soon.
I am well aware that the House has a great deal of sympathy with the purposes of the Bill. I believe that I am as interested in animal welfare as hon. Members who have promoted the Bill. But the heart of the Bill, as contained in Clause 1, would have the effect of prohibiting the export of ponies unless certain conditions are satisfied. One of the conditions is that a pony not exceeding 12 hands must have a minimum value of £70. The difficulty in principle in using minimum values as an export control is that in setting a high figure with the declared purpose of making export for slaughter totally uneconomic, much of the export to which no one can object of ponies for breeding purposes, riding


and as pets will be prevented. Ponies are of many ages, sizes and breeds, and the arbitrary minimum values laid down in the Bill would interfere with a legitimate and perfectly respectable trade.
A large proportion of all ponies exported in recent years were valued at well below the minimum values prescribed in the Bill. Therefore, the trade as a whole would be seriously affected. But the effect would be more critical upon breeders in some parts of the country than in others. I have put down the sub-Amendment because it is clear that if the minimum value of £70 for the smaller category of ponies goes forward as it stands, it will create grave and quite unreasonable difficulties for the crofters in the Shetland Isles who are dependent on Shetland pony breeding for an important part of their livelihood. The Bill will create not only economic problems but important problems of animal welfare.
I know that some Members honestly believe that it would be wrong and impracticable to specify different values for different breeds and that there is no justification for singling out for special treatment the Shetland breed for a lower minimum value. This is an objection with some colour, but in practice it is not a substantial objection. The inclusion in my Amendment of a maximum size of 10½ hands would go a long way to satisfying the objection.
I hope that the House will bear with me if I consider the effect of the Bill which would be experienced in the Shetland Isles, which I think call for special consideration. As the name suggests, the Shetland breed originates in the Shetland Isles, although it has now spread throughout Northern Europe. This pony which is small and hardy, can be reared in the cold climate of the Shetland Islands and on their poor soils where crops cannot be grown on any scale and where even sheep find subsistence difficult. In these areas, the crofters have eked out a very difficult living by pony breeding which makes a substantial difference to their livelihood.
The year's crop of ponies, usually at about four to five months old, is traditionally sold at the Island autumn sales. The figures which I have for 1968 show that 360 fillies and colts were sold for

about £25,000, of which 188 colts averaged about £25. Very few ponies are directly purchased by continental buyers. Most are taken to the mainland. About 200 to 300 per year are subsequently exported to the Continent. Some of these are bred, not in the Shetland Isles, but on the mainland. However, in the view of the breed society and a number of prominent breeders it is most unlikely that Shetland ponies are exported for slaughter.
At about five months old, the Shetland pony weighs about 1 cwt., rather less than a good strong calf. In these circumstances, it is most unlikely that slaughter would be sufficiently profitable to give rise to any organised trade at any price. Certainly, at the price proposed in the Amendment it would appear totally uneconomic.
I hope that the House will consider the effect of the Bill on the Shetland pony trade in the Islands as foreseen by bodies such as the Shetland Crofters Union, the Crofters Commission, the Shetland breed society and the auctioneers. If the minimum value of £70 in the Bill had been applied in 1967 and 1968, the export of about one-half to three-quarters of the ponies would have been stopped.
The records that I have been able to obtain show that in 1967, 309 Shetland ponies were exported. The Bill would have reduced this number to 67. The corresponding figure for 1968 was 238, which would have been reduced to 104. This would have serious results. In the first place, there would be a drastic fall in the Shetland sales. Many colts and ponies would remain unsold or have to be sold at uneconomic prices. Those remaining unsold would have to remain on the islands to face a winter of severe weather conditions on open scattolds, competing with the breeding stock for the very scanty forage available, and both would suffer. In effect, this would create a serious welfare problem.
This point deserves to be emphasised, because it is as much with this in mind as with any other consideration that I move my Amendment to the proposed Amendment.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member is not moving his Amendment. It is, however, being discussed with Amendment No. 1.

Mr. Maclennan: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I commend it to the House.
There would be great problems for the crofters themselves, many of whom rely on pony breeding to supplement their existence, and the economy of the poorer islands such as Unst, would be greatly depressed.
To pass the Bill in its present form unamended would be tantamount to saying that whatever their difficulties, the Shetland crofters should give up their breeding of native ponies because this House has some suspicions—it must be emphasised that they are no more than suspicions; the proponents of the Bill have not brought forward proof positive—that some of the foals may be mistreated in foreign slaughterhouses.
I ask the supporters of the Bill to examine their consciences, and their standards of living as well, and consider whether they would care to have their own incomes reduced to those of Shetland crofters upon the basis of those suspicions. If they cannot honestly say—

Mr. Burden: Will the hon. Member kindly tell the House how many breeders of Shetland ponies there are in his constituency?

Mr. Maclennan: The hon. Member will appreciate that my concern is not for breeders of Shetland ponies in my constituency. I have never made that claim. Throughout the progress of the Bill, I have made it clear that my concern was both for the welfare of the ponies and for the crofters living in the Shetland Islands. I ask hon. Members to give serious consideration to the effect of these proposals on the islanders and to accept my Amendment.

Mr. J. Grimond: I understand, Mr. Speaker, that we are discussing Amendment No. 1 and the three Amendments to it. Is that right?

Mr. Speaker: Yes, together with Amendments Nos. 2 and 3. The right hon. Gentleman has six Amendments to discuss.

Mr. Grimond: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I, too, would like to join in the regrets which have been expressed about the health of the hon. Member for Manchester, Withington (Sir R. Cary), who originally introduced the Bill.
I made a speech on Second Reading in which I outlined the position of some of my constituents. Naturally, it would be out of order to go over that ground again, but I should like to emphasise some points particularly directed to my support for the first Amendment to the Amendment which appears in the name of the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan). Responsible bodies throughout my constituency have advocated a lower figure of £30, but if we cannot obtain that lower figure the figure stated in the hon. Member's Amendment would be better than the £70 which was originally included in the Bill.
I must attempt to clear up some misunderstandings about the situation. There are various bodies which, from the best of motives, have taken a considerable interest in the arguments which have been put forward for reducing the figure from £70 to £40. One of them is the Dartmoor Livestock Protection Society, which, I might say in passing, is a very long way from Shetland and, possibly, operates in rather different circumstances.
In a booklet which it kindly sent me, however, that society states:
The population of Orkney and Shetland Islands is over 30,000 and yet there are only 181 crofter members of the stud book society. … Are we quite sure that Shetland pony breeding in the Orkney and Shetland Islands is anything more than a profitable sideline for a rather small minority?
That is the type of ignorant statement which is calculated to cause considerable annoyance among people who are far from rich and who live in much less comfortable circumstances than some of these people in the South of England.
No one has suggested that there is large-scale breeding of Shetland ponies in Orkney. What we suggest is that this is a vital trade to a certain part of Shetland. Anyone who knows about the crofting counties knows that although the number of crofters may not be great, this trade is vital to a small number of people in Shetland, and particularly in Unst, which has a population of under 1,000. Anything in the nature of an extra £25,000 coming into their islands at the annual sales is extremely important to the economy.
It has been suggested, I understand, that the Shetland Pony Stud Book Society might be prepared to accept a


figure of £50. This was said some time ago. The Society said it not because it likes the propositions in the Bill, but because it thought that £70 was too high.

Mr. Burden: When the right hon. Gentleman says that that was said some time ago, would he not agree that we should get it into relative terms? This was confirmed on 21st January in a letter to the Secretary of State.

Mr. Grimond: Yes. If we are to quote that, we ought to quote what else the stud book society said. It said that it has some sympathy with the purposes of the Bill but "that the terms of the Bill had been inadequately considered to the extent that they will not alleviate the position as it is sought to do but may well aggravate it".
The stud book society listed certain ways in which the position would be aggravated:
The lairage provisions will simply slow down the time of transit, which in itself is one of the principal causes of hardship. The provision which will result in further handling is another factor to be avoided in minimising suffering.
It would be quite unfair to the Shetland stud book society to say that it supports the main purpose of the Bill, because it does not. Nor does any of the other responsible bodies who know the situation. The Crofters Commission and the Highlands and Islands Development Board have opposed £70, as have local crofters who have petitioned against it and have suggested a figure of £30.
What is particularly significant is that the local branch of the Scottish Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals has opposed this figure. Indeed, it is apparent to anyone who knows the situation that quite contrary to the intentions of the sponsors of the Bill, unless Amendments are made on this vital question they will be encouraging cruelty to animals. Unst is 250 miles or more from Aberdeen. To minimise suffering, the animals need to be got to Aberdeen as quickly as possible. The Bill will cause delay. Furthermore, there is no proper lairage at places for keeping these ponies.
As the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland has said, and as I said on Second Reading, the greatest hardship that can be inflicted on these ponies is

to force them to remain in Unst on the scattolds in winter.

Mr. Speaker: Order. With respect, the right hon. Gentleman is embarking on a discussion of the Bill.

Mr. Grimond: We are discussing a Clause, Mr. Speaker, which, unless amended, will result in a great many ponies being left in Unst. There is no doubt about this from the figures quoted by the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland and by me. Some 200 to 300 ponies will be affected if the figure of ·70 stands in the Bill and will be left on the scattolds and that will inflict hardship, and I think that that should be very much in the mind of the House when it comes to vote.
11.30 a.m.
There is, of course, no evidence that these ponies are exported for slaughter. The very idea is slightly absurd, in view of their size. There may be very great cruelty to ponies on the Continent, and that is one of the reasons why I have not wholly opposed the Bill, but again, it should be remembered that, I understand, 8,000 ponies of the Shetland type are bred in Holland and there is no reason to suppose that the ponies which were found, for instance, by the staff of the Ambassador in Paris came from this country at all, but if they did there is absolutely no evidence they came from Shetland. No one has ever produced any evidence at all either that these ponies are sold for human consumption or that there is cruelty—except in one case of a pony which was not sold but was left on the scattold.
As I say, as far as I can make out the Bill will result in excluding some of these ponies which go for export perfectly properly, perhaps for riding, or as pets, and so forth. This is serious enough, but to insist upon the ·70 figure would gradually kill the trade and very seriously affect sales.
As I say, it is not a question of in some way advocating cruelty to animals. On the contrary, unless a more realistic figure is written in, cruelty will actually result from the Bill.
Further I must make some point about the peculiar position of ponies. They do arouse, quite properly, a very great deal of feeling—much as do cows among


Hindus. But this very interest sometimes strikes me as strange, because I cannot help thinking that if they were pigs there would not be quite the same interest in them, and I am not at all sure that pigs are any less sensitive than ponies though they may look rather less pleasant.
Therefore, we have to judge this in realistic terms. We have to judge whether we are meeting any justifiable case.

Mr. Burden: Does the right hon. Gentleman not know that there are provisions whereby cows, pigs and sheep must have rest—at least 10 hours before shipment—and that they must not be sent into a ship if they are about to produce?

Mr. Grimond: Of course. I am very glad to hear it. I can only say that, in my constituents' view, this puts ponies in a rather special position as against sheep.
Shetland is not like the South of England. It is a fact of life that this island. Unst, is 250 miles away even from Aberdeen, and though there is a relatively large export of livestock, and this has to be treated realistically within the possibilities of the situation. Therefore, I very much hope that the House will support the Amendment to the Amendment.
I have been very careful not to encroach on grounds I do not know. That is the reason why I have not generally attacked the Bill at all. I do not know about Dartmoor; therefore, I have not talked about that. I do not know the conditions which may exist in Wales, or about the exports from the eastern English ports. I do know about Shetland. I do know that there has been absolutely no case made out that Shetland ponies are exported for human consumption, and that no case has been made out about cruelty to them. I do know that there is an unanswerable case about how the Bill would gravely affect the incomes of people who are already very hard put to it to make a thriving living, and I know that many of the provisions of the Bill will be very difficult to enforce.
Moreover, it seems very strange to me that hon. Members who clamour so much about our having fewer civil servants should put their names to proposals which will undoubtedly mean a very

large increase in the inspectorate, and so forth. However, that is by the way.
What I am asking is is that the House should understand that the figure of £40 would have the effect of excluding a justifiable export trade, £70 would be intolerable, and £50 is more than my constituents should be expected to accept. If there has to be price fixing at all I would far rather prefer £30, but if the House will not accept that figure, then I would ask it to accept the Amendment proposing the figure of £40.

Mr. James Dance: I would begin by also congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Withington (Sir R. Cary) upon the very hard work he put into producing this Bill, and I am quite sure we all wish him well.
I direct my remarks to my Amendment to the Amendment and my proposal to make the figure £50. Possibly this figure is too low, but in any case the only reason I put down the Amendment to the Amendment was to try to comply with the wishes of the Shetland Stud Book Society which said very fairly on 21st January that it considered that £70
is rather high for Shetland ponies and would tend to diminish the export trade, and recommends instead £50 as a more realistic figure.
The Society recommended that, and that is the reason for this Amendment to the Amendment, because I want to help that Society.
I still believe this is far too low because I have evidence here that someone fairly recently tried to buy a miniature Shetland colt yearling and the cheapest price that could possibly be paid was £125, and other prices went up to £250. So this £50 figure is not a very unfair one.

Mr. Grimond: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that the figures which have been officialy produced of the prices at sales are faked? Or what is he saying? We can find out what the prices at sales are; they are recorded. They vary from £5 upwards. He has mentioned a yearling colt at £250. Is he saying that these figures are bogus?

Mr. Dance: No. I am certainly not. But the right hon. Gentleman is really supporting my argument. I am entirely in favour of and would like to encourage


the export of Shetland ponies for riding and breeding and so on, but I want to stop these scrub ponies going for slaughter.
I have also just got the information from an extremely reliable source which tells me that a 10½ hands pony in good condition would put on weight to some 5½ cwt. and my information is that the cut out amount of meat would be about 60 per cent. to 64 per cent. If we take that figure of 5½ cwt. then we find that this pony weighs 616 1b., and if we take that 60 per cent. odd we find that means 360 1b. deadweight of meat at the end. As my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr) pointed out so ably in Committee—and I must say that he took infinite trouble to get information—the selling price at the far end is about 12s. to 18s. a 1b., which means that the 101 hands pony would fetch something like £130 or £140, a very profitable trade at the other end.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. John Mackie): I think the hon. Gentleman is giving a misleading calculation. I have it confirmed on good authority that for a colt at £40 the figure is nothing like that. If one operates on the basis of the retail price as against the wholesale price, of course one gets a figure which puts the argument out of joint altogether.

Mr. Speaker: Order. We seem at this moment to be debating the Bill. We are debating not the Bill however but a group of Amendments.

Mr. Dance: I beg your pardon, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. Speaker: We are not debating the Bill at the moment, but certain Amendments to it.

Mr. Dance: Yes, Sir. What I was trying to say was that those figures which I gave are correct I am told. The figure originally given was some 60 per cent., but shortly before this debate I was told it went up to 64 per cent. I agree with the Minister that the end price is larger than the beginning price. Nevertheless, there is a large discrepancy between the figure of £40 which the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) wants and the £130–£150

which it would reach at the other end. I commend to the House the more realistic figure of £50.
The hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland said that he had no evidence that ponies were ill-treated in transit. I have some rather horrifying information here from someone who went to Germany—

Mr. Speaker: Order. What the hon. Gentleman is about to say will be in order on Third Reading. We are replacing one subsection by another. There are three proposed Amendments to the Amendment, plus two Amendments to the original subsection. These are what we are debating now.

Mr. Dance: I beg your pardon, Sir. I conclude by asking: what, indeed, is a Shetland pony? I believe that this issue may cause a little confusion. We all know that much of the wine labelled Beaujolais comes, not from Beaujolais at all, but from Algiers. Shall we not find ourselves faced with a problem, in that we shall require experts to say whether the pony concerned is a Shetland pony, whether its conformation is correct, and whether it shows the true characteristics of the breed? I should like a little more information about how that will be established.
I ask the House to accept the figure of £50. I think that it is on the low side, but if it is acceptable to the Shetland Pony Stud Book Society it is only right that the House should accept it.

Mr. Michael Heseltine: May I associate myself with the remarks which have been made about my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Withington (Sir R. Cary), who has always been extremely courteous to me since I have been in the House. I am in the embarrassing position of being in opposition to parts of the Bill with which my hon. Friend was originally associated.
Both sides of the House give general support to those parts of the Bill concerning the conditions under which ponies are exported. The anxiety arises over the introduction of the arbitrary price levels which have been put into the legislation and which are the subject of Amendments Nos. 2 and 3, which stand in my name.
I will deal with the arguments on Amendment No. 2 briefly, because I think


that they are broadly acceptable to the sponsors of the Bill. This Amendment seeks to substitute 12·2 hands for 12 hands, because 12·2 hands is recognised as being the height of the standard Dartmoor pony. I believe it is generally acceptable that the exclusions to bring the level of £100 down to £70 should apply to that breed and that the sponsors of the Bill will therefore agree to an Amendment which has that effect. It is a purely technical Amendment. It is unnecessary to devote any more time to it, it being recognised that the Dartmoor pony, along with the New Forest pony and the Shetland pony, is one of the smaller breeds and, therefore, should come within this redefinition of what the original legislation proposed.
My second Amendment is of much greater substance and, therefore, is likely to be rather more controversial. It seeks to reduce the value of a pony of 12 hands from £70 to £40 for the purposes of the operation of this legislation. I am concerned on a number of grounds about the effect on constituents of mine of the introduction of the proposed £70 limit. We heard a number of well reasoned arguments in Committee on behalf specifically of the Shetland pony. I have not the slightest doubt that there are problems associated with that area and with the ponies that come from it.
I represent the vast majority of the acreage of Dartmoor. There, too, we have special problems—problems which qua this legislation surround the Dartmoor pony which is bred in reasonable numbers in that area and which would not be replaced by any other form of livestock rearing if this form of farming were to disappear. The breeding of Dartmoor ponies constitutes a considerable part of the revenue which the commoners derive from the moor. It is a traditional industry and one which, in the hands of certain of the commoners, is today producing a lucrative revenue. It is one which is threatened by the proposed £70 limit.
11.45 a.m.
As I understand it, the main and most lasting effect of the £70 limit is that it prevents the export of ponies which are to be kept on the Continent for perhaps two years before being sold as ponies for pleasure purposes. It is

not the intention of the legislation to prevent the slaughter of ponies. Here I disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Mr. Dance), because I think that it is clear that the legislation will not reduce the number of ponies slaughtered for human consumption on the Continent. It will ensure that the ponies will be slaughtered in Britain and then the dead meat will be shipped to the Continent. I believe that this is acceptable to the sponsors of the Bill. It would therefore be helpful if they would explain to the House what additional facilities are likely to be forthcoming to help in the slaughter of ponies in Britain and if they would put it more clearly on the record that they are not in any way trying to reduce or affect the supply of pony flesh for human consumption.
The issue all revolves round the question whether these ponies are being exported through British ports to the Continent ostensibly for the purposes of being used for pleasure but in practice to go to the slaughterhouses. The sponsors of the Bill have no objection to the export of ponies where it can be shown that they are to be used for breeding, riding or any such purpose and that they come within the financial limits. Nor have I.
If I may put my own personal position on the record, I am quite appalled at the confusion that exists when it comes to the provision of evidence about the destination of ponies that go abroad. Some time ago I was approached by the Dartmoor Livestock Protection Society, which is one of the organisations pressing for this legislation. As I was interested in the case which was argued by the Society, I arranged for a meeting between officers of the Society and the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. I took the officers to the Ministry. I hope that my hon. Friends will take it as a sign of good intention on my part when I record that I was superficially and initially interested in the case that was advocated. However, I must state that I was appalled by the trivial nature of the evidence, which was totally destroyed by the Minister at the meeting. I therefore looked again carefully to see whether there was justification for the suggestion that ponies were going abroad for slaughter—

Mr. Speaker: Order. That is speaking about the Bill itself, not the Amendments. The hon. Gentleman may speak on the Bill on Third Reading.

Mr. Heseltine: In that case, I leave the point, Sir.
Putting aside the question whether the slaughter traffic should be set aside, my concern is that it should be possible for rearers of ponies in Britain to sell the ponies at a relatively young age—say, six months—to people who take them to the Continent, who keep them for the two years necessary to bring them up to a state when they can be ridden, and who break them ready for human handling. This will not happen if the £70 limit is imposed. If a £40 limit is applied, it will be possible for these people to continue the trade which they say is at present being carried out with a view to providing ponies as pets on the Continent.
I want to quote from an article in a local newspaper reporting what was said by probably the largest breeder of ponies in my constituency and, therefore, probably the largest breeder of Dartmoor ponies. The article said:
Mr. Coaker said he exported between 700 and 800 ponies in 1967 and approximately 400 last year. 'I have a ledger showing where every pony went', he said, 'and none of my animals went for slaughter. If there was any question of slaughter I would not have anything to do with the trade.' He exported mainly mares and filly foals for about £50 each—and the new Bill would debar as much as 75 per cent. of his export trade, he claimed. Mrs. Coaker accompanies every consignment to the Continental receiving port. 'We have sold ponies in every European country west of the Iron Curtain', Mr. Coaker said. …
I asked if I could visit his farm on Dartmoor. He agreed and also produced the ledger for me to study. It contained detailed analyses of every sale, including the price paid, the name of the purchaser and the destination. I did not do a detailed and lengthy audit of his books but I have no reason to suppose at the end of my visit that he was not showing me anything I asked to see. I regard his evidence as being as substantial as the evidence of the Society. He believes that his customers on the Continent are holding on to the ponies until they are ready for disposal for family purposes.

Mr. Burden: My right hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate (Mr. Ramsden)

has given specific and accurate information, obtained from Belgian records, showing that, in 1967, a total of 14,000 metric tons of carcase horse flesh representing about 30,000 animals was imported into Belgium alone.

Mr. Speaker: Order. A promoter of the Bill must not tempt himself to get out of order.

Mr. Heseltine: I leave that point, Mr. Speaker. I sympathise with the arguments put by the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan). Although the constituency concerned is not immediately his, he has a regional interest and has expressed very adequately the case of the breeders there. I ask for his sympathetic understanding when I say that I cannot support his Amendment.
There may well be specific problems in the case of Shetland ponies. But they are exactly the problems which I have at the moment. If I were agreeable to the protections specifically sought for Shetland ponies, I would be aggravating the situation in respect of Dartmoor ponies. There is a two-hands difference in the size of the ponies but people who buy ponies for their children—and this is largely the market—are likely to look more at the colour and individual attractiveness of a pony than take into account whether it is a Dartmoor or a Shetland. They will surely not be very concerned about which region it comes from. His Amendment would put a £30 differential on Shetland ponies as opposed to Dartmoor ponies. Whilst I sympathise with the arguments the hon. Gentleman put in the case of Shetland ponies, I could accept them only if they were also applied to Dartmoor ponies as well. No doubt the same situation applies to New Forest ponies.
Amendment No. 3 would make the situation of the Ministry of Agriculture much easier because it is simple and clear-cut. It would delete the reference to £70 and substitute a level of £40, which would by and large be acceptable to all of those with special problems and interests in this matter. It would be easy for the Ministry to execute.

Mr. Grimond: I cannot, of course, speak for the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) but I


think that I can speak for some of the Shetland pony breeders who have petitioned against the Bill. I am sure that they had no idea of harming the Dartmoor breeders. They were simply concerned with the Shetland situation. I understand the point the hon. Member for Tavistock (Mr. Michael Heseltine) is putting and I am sure they would too. It would be a pity if it were felt that there was rivalry or any intention to harm the hon. Gentleman's constituents. It is simply that we did not know about Dartmoor ponies and were largely concerned with our own affairs.

Mr. Heseltine: Of course I totally accept that point. I think that I have shown that the Amendment moved by the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland deals with a constituency problem whereas I hope that mine would catch up all the problems existing for specialist breeds. This surely would make my Amendment acceptable to all whereas his Amendment would adversely affect my part of the country. I could not, therefore, support it, whereas, if the hon. Gentleman supported my Amendment, he would gain for the Shetland pony breeders all that they required without prejudicing anyone else's position. In any case, his Amendment worries me in relation to definition. It would be extremely difficult to define what a Shetland pony is at any one time. It would produce difficulties at the Ministry, which would not want to take that on. On the other hand, my definition of a straight £40 is easy to understand and administer.

Mr. Maclennan: The proposal to categorise by breeds is not entirely unprecedented. Section 10 of the Horse Breeding Act, 1918—

Mr. Speaker: Order. We are on the Report stage. The hon. Gentleman cannot make a second speech but only a brief intervention.

Mr. Maclennan: I intervened to point out that the Shetland pony breed is exempted under the Horse Breeding Act, 1918, from stallion licensing requirements.

Mr. Heseltine: I do not doubt that but the hon. Gentleman will appreciate the harm to my constituency if I were to agree to a differential in favour of Shetland ponies. I am sure that the sponsors

of the Bill understand that the House wants a Bill of this kind because the general intentions are right and they carry wide sympathy. The main concern is about the details of the drafting—in my own case, with the export at a young age of what I call store ponies which can be stored two years before being sold. Perhaps my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Gillingham (Mr. Burden) could help me with amplification of the words in his Amendment,
… intended for breeding, riding or exhibition …
since, if he could alter or amplify them so that a young pony intended—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman cannot speak to an Amendment which is not on the Order Paper.

Mr. Heseltine: I apologise, Mr. Speaker I thought I was referring to Amendment No. 1. In that case I leave the point. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham will consider carefully the points I have made, which give genuine concern to my constituents, to whom hardship would be caused if the Bill were passed as it stands.

12 noon.

Mr. Alfred Morris: I warmly endorse what has been said about the zeal and devotion invested in the Bill by the hon. Member for Manchester, Withington (Sir R. Cary). The whole House will be relieved and happy to know of the progress he is making towards recovery from the illness which prevents his attendance here today.
I want to support the Amendment moved by the hon. Member for Gillingham (Mr. Burden). I feel that nothing has been said to disturb the case he presented to the House.
Reference has been made to the Shetland Pony Stud Book Society—the breed's rules body—and my hon. Friend the Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) gave some figures on the effect, as he saw it, of applying a minimum value of £70. In that connection, he spoke of the sales in 1967 and 1968. My information is that the Society believes that in 1967 only about 35 ponies bought for export at the Shetland Pony Sales would have been affected by the proposed £70 minimum value, and that in 1968 only some 42 would have been affected.
The House might also reflect on the view of the Council of the Society that breeders could well benefit greatly from the minimum values proposed in the Bill on the ground that overseas buyers will pay more for the best stock.
I understand that the Society has informed my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary and the Scottish Office that it does not substantiate the claims made by the Crofters Association and that in general the Society supports the Bill.
Inevitably, there has been compromise between the sponsors of the Bill and the two Departments affected by its provisions. My hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary is to be congratulated on conciliating the differences which have arisen, and I very much hope that we shall make good progress today towards completing the remaining stages of the Bill.

Mr. Gordon A. T. Bagier: I hesitate to move into the circle of obvious experts on the raising and exporting of ponies. However, before we finally decide the sum which is to be inserted in the Bill, I hope that hon. Members will consider the important situation which is pending as a result of the decision of the National Coal Board to make its pit ponies redundant by the end of next year. It will have the effect very quickly of bringing about 2,000 ponies on to the market. Concern has been expressed to me by people throughout the country about the possibilities of these animals being exported for slaughter.
Lord Robens has made it clear to me in correspondence that only by the Ponies Bill can he guarantee that something can be done to ensure that they do not go abroad in this way. He is utterly opposed to the export of ponies for slaughter.
I hesitate to recommend a specific figure, because I prefer to leave that to the experts, but I hope that they will consider the importance of pricing out of existence any possibility of these animals, which are widely respected and loved, being exported in a way which means that, at the end of their working lives, they finish up in continental slaughterhouses.

Mr. Patrick McNair-Wilson: I want first to comment on what has been said by the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Bagier), and I can assure him that the Bill provides the protection that he seeks.
I hope that the Amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham (Mr. Burden) will stand as it is. I understand and sympathise with the feelings of my hon. Friend the Member for Tavistock (Mr. Michael Heseltine) and others who have spoken. Clearly, with a Bill of this type, there will be certain individuals who feel that their own breeds of pony are not being looked after properly. However, the acceptance of any Amendment changing the minimum price will open the floodgate to a whole range of special pleading which will damage the Bill.
I am well aware that frequently figures are misleading and cause people to feel that special cases are not catered for properly. However, in paragraph (a) of my hon. Friend's Amendment, after the figure of £70, one sees the words
or such other value in either case as may be prescribed by order of the Minister and the Secretary of State acting jointly …".
The Amendment has been drawn with the generous help of the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary, and we are grateful for that. The acceptance of other Amendments setting limits on height or price will merely confuse the issue. The Bill is a simple one and its purpose is clear. It is to limit cruelty and the export of ponies for the wrong purposes. For that reason, I recommend hon. Members to support Amendment No. 1, because it covers all the points which have been raised.

Mr. John Farr: After some of the speeches this morning, it was refreshing to hear what the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Bagier) had to say, because he made an important and significant point concerning the impending release of large numbers of pit ponies on to the market.
The House would be well advised to reject the Amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) and my hon. Friend the Member for Tavistock (Mr. Michael Heseltine). The Bill is fairly sensible, simple and easily understood. Once we start differentiating between


breeds and introducing different treatments for them, we have a complicated Measure which may prove to be unworkable. Once one embarks upon a course of that nature, one runs into definition difficulties.
I was surprised to hear some of the comments of the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland about the way in which the problem has been presented to him. He mentioned the Highlands and Islands Development Board, and the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) pointed out that the Board opposed the figures contained in the Bill. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman has ready access to the experts on that Board. I wonder whether he has asked them if the Board has considered erecting an abattoir for surplus ponies in the Northern Scottish districts and outlying island districts. The question was put to the Minister in Standing Committee, but we got no answer. I can understand why. The Minister is not in communication with the Board in the way that the right hon. Gentleman is. If he has put the problem to the Board, the House would be interested to know its answer.

Mr. Grimond: If the Joint Parliamentary Secretary is not, through the Scottish Office, in touch with the Highlands and Islands Development Board, it is very odd. We do not want our ponies slaughtered. I understood that the sponsors were not introducing a slaughter of ponies Bill. Up to now we have been selling ponies for the purpose of breeding and riding. No one has suggested that any substantial number have to be slaughtered. Eventually all animals are killed. But if the Bill in its present form is passed, we may be faced with a surplus of ponies which will have to be slaughtered when there is no need for it.

Mr. Farr: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for those remarks on the point that I raised, but I do not regard his answer as satisfactory. I did not regard the right hon. Gentleman's remarks about the desire and need of certain breeders on the island of Unst to get the ponies the distance of 250 miles to the mainland as quickly as possible as very helpful. He indicated that lairage facilities were not only superfluous

in this journey but positively not wanted.

Mr. Grimond: Mr. Grimondrose—

Mr. Farr: I think it is an extraordinary attitude for the right hon. Gentleman to suggest that these ponies should be pushed together in the hold of a boat—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member is following the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) into the realms of disorder. He can talk about that on Third Reading.

Mr. Farr: I immediately bow to your advice, Mr. Speaker, and turn to the remarks made by my hon. Friend the Member for Tavistock (Mr. Michael Heseltine), which I believe were completely in order the whole time. He referred to a constituent of his who apparently, under admirable circumstances, breeds Dartmoor ponies. He has a very happy occupation and a rewarding business selling Dartmoor ponies to people from the Continent for a price, we understand, as low as £40. My hon. Friend's constituent's wife even takes the trouble to accompany each consignment of ponies to the Continent to make sure that they end up in suitable hands. It is a relief to know this.
My hon. Friend said that these ponies which went to the Continent for £40 or £45 were bought fairly young and went for two years' training before they were released for riding and schooling purposes. It is remarkable that people will go to the trouble of buying Dartmoor ponies at £40 or £45 to send to the Continent, should take the trouble to train them for two years and perhaps then sell them for £100 at the end of that period, when they can straight away, on the Paris, Brussels or Amsterdam markets obtain over £120 for a typical Dartmoor or Shetland pony. They follow an extraordinary practice.
My hon. Friend cannot gainsay the facts of the case which have been proved, I think fairly adequately, on Second Reading and in Standing Committee when we discussed the specific point that ponies of the Shetland and Dartmoor type are selling in Continental markets for £100 or £120 to butchers who buy them for human consumption. Why should my hon. Friend's constituent's customers go to the trouble of buying these animals for £40 or £45 and training


them on the Continent for two years when they can more than double their money overnight by unloading them on the market? While I accept as absolutely infallible the sources of information given to the House by my hon. Friend the Member for Tavistock, I suggest that the example that he illustrated is an exception—

Mr. Michael Heseltine: Mr. Michael Heseltinerose—

Mr. Farr: —and that the rule is that the vast majority of ponies which leave this country, either because they are old and have finished their useful life or because they are perhaps very young, end up in the slaughterhouses on the Continent for human consumption.

Mr. Heseltine: I am interested to know whether the figure that my hon. Friend quotes is the figure which can be obtained for selling six-months' old Dartmoor ponies on the Continental market.

12.15 p.m.

Mr. Farr: The figures that I gave on Second Reading and in Standing Committee have never been questioned. They were worked out on the basis of the dead weight of the animal concerned. Obviously the killing out or dead weight of a six-months' old pony would not be the same as the killing out or dead weight of an older animal. But these figures satisfactorily establish—and I think that the Minister agreed with this—that the killing out landed weight of a pony on the Continent is about 2s. 1d. a 1b. on the retail weight in a pony shop and is—

Mr. Speaker: Order. We are getting deeply involved. The hon. Member must link what he has to say with the Amendments which seek to delete £70 and substitute £40 or £50 for Shetland ponies or Shetland breed or even Dartmoor breeds of ponies.

Mr. Farr: I am obliged for your interruption, Mr. Speaker, as always, but I respectfully point out that these Amendments hinge ultimately on the price of horse or pony flesh in the pony and horse flesh shops on the Continent. They must, because, if these price barriers are not included in Clause 1 and animals can continue to go abroad, as

they do now for, £40 or even £30 a head, this trade can continue. It is with the purpose of ending this trade that these barriers of £100 and £70 have been inserted.

Mr. John Mackie: I presume this point is in order. I must point out to the hon. Gentleman, who is a farmer, that he does not base what he sells cattle for on what the butcher sells at over the counter. He bases it on the wholesale price he gets in the market, as I do. The wholesale price of horse flesh in Paris is 3s. a 1b. and 2s. 6d., or a little over, in Brussels. The hon. Gentleman must not use this argument about what is paid over the butcher's counter. A man buying for slaughter in this country can only work out his profit on the wholesale figure, not the butcher's costs and everything else that make up the retail price.

Mr. Farr: I am obliged to the Minister, once more. I should like to give an illustration of a typical case of the market at Hedel in Holland where approximately 3,000 animals are sometimes arranged for sale on the same day, about half of which are ponies. I have a report by a British citizen who lives in Holland, Mr. H. J. Oliver, who is a frequent visitor to this market and has seen hundreds of British ponies going through. This report was compiled at the end of last year. He can establish, and I can establish to my satisfaction, that they are British ponies because they still carry Her Majesty's Government's inspection marks or tags on their manes. He gives an example of his latest visit which took place at the end of last year when, of about 1,500 ponies in this market, over half, in his opinion, were imported from Britain. He substantiated this by filming the scenes at the market and taking close-ups—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member is on the general question that there is export of ponies. The Bill seeks to prevent that. All we are discussing at the moment is a group of Amendments.

Mr. Farr: I should like to conclude by referring to the intervention by the Minister when he referred to the wholesale price of horse flesh on the Continent. This is a significant point. But, once again, the Ministry's sources of


information are at fault. The wholesale price of beef in this country is about 4s. or 4s. 6d. a 1b. in domestic markets. Yet beef can be bought in shops in this country from 7s. 6d. to 8s. a 1b. It is reasonable to suppose that if the retail price of pony and horse flesh on the Continent is about 12s. to 15s. a 1b., the wholesale price must be much higher than the figure quoted by the Minister.
Hon. Members on both sides of the House are satisfied that this trade is continuing, that ponies are deliberately being exported for slaughter. That is why these figures have been included in the Clause. I recommend the House to accept the Clause so ably proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham.

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Norman Buchan): I propose to intervene only briefly to discuss two of the Amendments to the proposed Amendment, but may I first join in the good wishes which have been sent to the hon. Member for Manchester, Withington (Sir R. Cary) wishing him a speedy recovery.
In Committee my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary defined the job of a Minister on a Bill such as this. He said that it was the Minister's job to examine the Bill carefully, to see whether there was a necessity for it, whether it could be administered, and what the economic consequences would be, and how many people it would affect.
I do not want to get involved in a discussion on the merits of this proposal. We are trying to see whether it can work, and what kind of effect it will have. I propose to talk basically about two Amendments, because certain difficulties arise on them from an administrative point of view.
I propose to discuss, first, the Amendments in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) and that in the name of the hon. Member for Tavistock (Mr. Michael Heseltine). I think that most hon. Members are in agreement with the main Amendment which is designed to improve the Bill.
I welcome my hon. Friend's Amendment. I do so speaking as a Scottish Minister because of the consequences which the failure to accept my hon.

Friend's Amendment might have on the livelihood of the crofters in the Shetland Isles. This has been referred to by the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond).
One of the difficulties is that those who support the Bill are using the device of minimum value to try to control the European slaughter trade in British ponies, but this is far too crude a method. In setting a figure high enough to make export for slaughter uneconomic, much of the export trade in most breeds of ponies which is for the legitimate purpose of providing ponies for breeding and riding and for pets for children, would be prevented. This would particularly affect the Shetlands where, although the value of ponies exported does not amount to much when compared to the global figure, they reflect an important figure for that area. Reference was made to Unst and to the effect on the economy there. The right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland told the House what effect this would have on the income of the crofters and the people in that area.
I must underline what my hon. Friend the Member for Caithness and Sutherland said about the effect of the Bill. The Bill would create an animal welfare problem in the Shetlands, because in these barren islands unsold ponies would have to be wintered there and would face semi-starvation. The winter climate in the Shetlands is not always noted for its mildness. I do not think that the supporters of the Bill would resist an Amendment which seeks, among other things, to deal with that problem.

Mr. Burden: I draw the Minister's attention to the fact that in the proposed Clause the Minister will still have the power to introduce such value as may be prescribed for the purpose of the subsection in question, and therefore that power will exist if the hardship that is contemplated is found to exist.

Mr. Buchan: I thought that the hon. Gentleman might raise that at some stage, and this issue was raised also by the hon. Member for New Forest (Mr. Patrick McNair-Wilson). We are in a certain difficulty. It is not customary in a Bill which contains quite specific proposals to allow them to be varied in this way by the Minister. Despite the saving phrase in many Bills, it is not seen as a


mechanism whereby the main functions and purposes set out in a Bill can be thwarted. This would be an unusual use of power and one which the Minister might not find himself able to exercise. We cannot write into a Bill a general power which is not to be seen as a general power and which can obviate the rest of the Bill. I think that one would find it difficult to sustain that situation. If that were the case no difficulty would arise, because we would merely say that any Minister could at any time determine the level of price, and the rest of the Bill would be pointless. This is not what the Bill is about.

Mr. Patrick McNair-Wilson: Would not the Minister agree that if those words were there, and if real hardship arose in the Shetlands, the Minister would be able to do something to put it right?

Mr. Buchan: If some of the other Amendments were not accepted, the Minister would be put in the position of trying to seek that saving device in the interests both of the animals in the Shetlands and the people there. I am advised that it would be difficult to do this, that it is not seen as having that kind of generalised function, and it has not been seen in the past. I am referring, of course, to the words,
in either case as may be prescribed by order …
That is my advice, and I must inform the House of it because I recognise its importance in connection with later Amendments.
I do not think that anyone denies the possibility of Shetland ponies being sold at markets on the continent, and no one can deny the possibility that some of those ponies may find their way to slaughter houses, but I am told that some of the ponies found in slaughter houses on the continent may be born and bred in Scotland. I know of no prominent Shetland breeder connected with this trade who has ever said that this is the case. Indeed, one prominent Shetland breeder recently said that she knew of no cases of Shetland ponies being exported for slaughter.
It seems to me that, intentionally or otherwise, the Bill has been drafted to discourage the export of all but the pedigree high price ponies. I must point

out to the House that this is not necessarily related to the welfare of ponies, and that many of the less valuable ponies are perfectly suitable for riding and pets.
We must not get it into our heads that any crofter in the Shetlands and Orkneys is making a vast profit out of this trade. It is merely an additional sustenance. No vast profits are being made. Most of the crofters produce one or two ponies, and this is really what we are concerned with.
I think that I had better comment on the Amendment and on the argument between £50 and £40. It is interesting to note that in 1967, at the £50 figure about 37 per cent. of Shetland ponies would have been excluded. On the £40 figure, 20 per cent. would have been excluded, so there is a considerable difference there.

Mr. Burden: I am very suspicious of percentages in this context. If the percentages have been worked out, surely the Minister has the figures for the number of ponies affected?

Mr. Buchan: I think I have. At £50, out of 309 ponies, 113 would have been excluded. That is 37 per cent. At £40, out of 309 ponies, 61 would have been excluded. That is 20 per cent. The figure is either 113 or 61, so the difference is 52. If we do not deal with percentages, or with comparative figures, we can make a good case for ignoring the argument about the Shetland trade, because globally it represents such a small amount. But I think that we must deal with it in comparative terms, and that there is much virtue in these percentages.
My aim is not to discuss the merits of what is proposed, but to consider the workability of it and to put the House in possession of the facts.
12.30 p.m.
I must also refer to the various organisations that have been mentioned. It is correct to say that the Shetland Pony Stud Book Society put up the figure of £50. The letter that we have received says:
The Society considers that the £70 minimum price for export is rather high for Shetland ponies and would tend to damage the export trade. We recommend that £50 would be a more realistic figure.
As opposed to that, the Crofters Commission said that the figure should be


£30; the Shetland Crofters Union said that it should be £30 and the Highlands and Islands Development Board also suggested a figure of £30. In other words the representatives both of the people involved and those whose task it is to administer matters in the area—the Crofters Commission and the Highlands and Islands Development Board—suggested a figure of £30.

Mr. Grimond: Can the Minister confirm that the Shetland Stud Book Society was not wholly favourable to the Bill, and also that the petition sent in from the Shetland crofters mentioned a figure of £30?

Mr. Buchan: I am not sure about the petition, but the right hon. Gentleman is correct in the other respect.
We now come to the difficulty that arises in respect of the two Amendments put forward to the Amendment under discussion. I appreciate the difficulties facing the hon. Member for Tavistock in respect of his Amendments. He made the point that if Shetland ponies were dealt with specially there would be a discrepancy between our dealing with them and our dealing with other ponies in a similar situation. I find it difficult to know how to advise the House. It seems to me that there is a technical error involved in Amendments Nos. 2 and 3 which would arise if the Amendment that we are now discussing were accepted. It might be that the problem could be dealt with in another place, at a later stage, but I must point out the difficulty.
Some difficulty also arises in connection with definition. I agree with the point that has been raised in that respect. A good deal will depend on the usual visual defining, however, and we do not anticipate technical administrative difficulties arising out of the Amendment. We welcome the Amendment but we also strongly recommend the House to support the Amendment to the proposed Amendment in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan).

Mr. Speaker: Order. On a purely technical point it is impossible to support Amendment No. 1 and Amendment No. 3 because if the first Amendment is carried the other will fall.

Mr. Buchan: I am glad that you have defined the position, Mr. Speaker. I had hinted at it but I did not think it incumbent on me to go any further. I am glad that you have done so. That is precisely the point I had in mind.

Dr. Hugh Gray: I intervene briefly, because the Port of Great Yarmouth has been concerned in the export of ponies and many of my constituents have been in touch both with me and with my hon. Friend. In response to complaints received my hon. Friend was kind enough to pay an unexpected visit to Great Yarmouth in order to examine for himself the conditions under which ponies were exported. My hon. Friend did not announce his visit beforehand. I hope that he will tell the House about his visit, and what he saw.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I hope that the hon. Member will come to the terms of the Amendment.

Dr. Gray: I support the Amendment. It will meet the wishes, attitudes and values of my constituents to a great extent by restricting to some degree and making less profitable the traffic in ponies that is now taking place. The effect of raising the price will surely be to cause fewer ponies to be exported to the Continent.
I want to make it clear that the Port and Haven Commissioners have no direct responsibility in this matter, and that the responsibility of the company which ships these ponies arises only when the ponies are taken on board. My constituents hold strong feelings about this—

Mr. Speaker: Order. All this, including the reference to Yarmouth, may be in order in the debate on the Third Reading, but we are now discussing an Amenment, three Amendments to that Amendment, and two other Amendments to the part of the Bill which the first Amendment seeks to replace. The hon. Member must come to the terms of the Amendment.

Dr. Gray: I thought that by referring to the fact that the Amendment would seem to meet the wishes of my constituents I was in order. However, I will leave my remaining remarks to the debate on the Third Reading.

Mr. Burden: I have listened carefully to the arguments that have been put forward, especially those of the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) and my hon. Friend the Member for Tavistock (Mr. Michael Heseltine), but I find myself unable to accept their views; indeed, the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland gave every reason why the Bill, and especially the Clause, should go through. He pointed out that the Shetland pony trade was very important to the people in the island and he also reminded us that it was 250 miles from Aberdeen.
Among other things, the Clause seeks to prevent cruelty to ponies and to prevent their being exported unless they are shown to be fit for export. It seemed to me that the right hon. Gentleman reinforced the case for the Bill by saying that these ponies should be put direct on board ship at the end of their journey in the United Kingdom, when they were to be sent abroad. These ponies have to travel by sea from Shetland to the mainland, and then travel across country, presumably in cattle trucks, after which they have to be put into another ship for their journey abroad, then, presumably, to endure further rail journeys on the Continent. If there were no other grounds for the Bill the ground of pure humanity and the cessation of cruelty would be enough.

Mr. Grimond: I was merely quoting what was said by the Stud Book Society, which the hon. Member has prayed in aid as an expert body. The view of that body is that the quicker the ponies are moved from Lerwick the better. I pointed out that although it is desirable that there should be lairage, my information is that there is none. I am not saying that lairage is not desirable.

Mr. John Mackie: That is one of the problems. There is no lairage for poines at the various ports in Scotland, and the Stud Book Society has objected to its provisions in the past, because of the cost involved.

Mr. Burden: That does not get away from the fundamentals of the case. It would be incorrect for me to refer to the hon. Member's Second Reading speech, but he has changed his ground extraordinarily in view of what he is saying today.
We are also endeavouring to ensure that these ponies are not sent abroad for slaughter, but are sent for riding or breeding. The hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Bagier), who intervened on behalf of pit ponies, made one of the strongest arguments in favour of the Bill. I am sure that the House took his speech very seriously. The right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland also referred to preventing the export of ponies of a certain age.

Mr. Grimond: indicated dissent.

Mr. Burden: That may not be what the right hon. Gentleman meant but that was the inference that I drew. I am sorry if I misjudged him. One of the aims of the Bill is to prevent the export of old ponies which are unfit for breeding or riding. That is vitally necessary.
The right hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friend the Member for Tavistock were obviously concerned about what will happen to ponies which are not fit for breeding or riding. I again refer to the views of the Shetland Pony Stud Book Society. The letter which the Society sent to the Secretary of the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland on 21st January, 1969, said:
The Society considers that proper facilities must be provided in the U.K. for the humane slaughter of scrub ponies unsuitable for breeding or riding purposes and an organisation should be formed to conduct the marketing and exporting of their carcasses.
The Society thus makes it clear that it considers that there is the likelihood that some animals are going abroad for this purpose and that, even if they are not, it would be better for Shetland pony breeders in general that there should be such a facility so that the better stock can be retained and scrub ponies fit for nothing but slaughter can be slaughtered without long journeys and in the most humane conditions.
The right hon. Gentleman said that we do not want our ponies to go abroad for slaughter. All farm animals must at some time come to this end. The sponsors of the Bill recognise that this is necessary. This is why we have moved in this direction.
The possibility of setting up abattoirs in Britain has been raised. I know that this is a point to which the right hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friend the Member for Tavistock put great weight. I


have a letter from one of the biggest manufacturers of feeding stuff—

Mr. Speaker: That can come in on Third Reading.

Mr. Burden: I bow to your Ruling, Mr. Speaker. I have a letter from one of the biggest feeding stuff manufacturers in which he undertakes to set one up and have it working within six months.
My hon. Friend the Member for Tavistock concentrated on the information he had received from one breeder. He said that the wife of that breeder went abroad with the batches of ponies to ensure that they were shipped humanely and properly, but she left them at the point of disembarkation. Of course they could be watched up to that point. It is after that point that the cruelty, the travelling and the slaughter takes place, not at the point of disembarkation. Is my hon. Friend naïve enough to believe that, in view of the feeling in Britain, that those who act as importers of ponies for slaughter in other countries would declare this? Of course they would not.

Mr. Michael Heseltine: My hon. Friend knows as well as I do that nobody denies that the possibility exists. What we are absolutely sure about is the case has not been proved.

Mr. Burden: I have ample evidence to satisfy me that it has been proved. My hon. Friend must accept that perhaps the case was not proved in the argument he advanced.
My hon. Friend also said that Dartmoor ponies go up to 12.2 hands. To 12 hands the price comes down from £100 to £70. This is a good assessment of the killing out cost of animals to make it as unprofitable as possible. In any case, if ponies at 12.2 hands are fit for riding and breeding, they would certainly fetch £70 without any difficulty.

Mr. Heseltine: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way yet again.

Mr. Speaker: Order. We are not in Committee—

Mr. Heseltine: This will be the last time.

Mr. Speaker: We must not have too many interventions.

Mr. Burden: On a point of order. I very much object to the remark my hon. Friend has just passed—"He asked for it". I did not ask for it.

Mr. Heseltine: Further to that point of order. I said, "This will be the last time". I would never have used the words that my hon. Friend thought that he heard. Am I to understand that my hon. Friend is prepared to accept that the adjustment from 12 to 12.2 is reasonable and should be embodied in the Bill?

12.45 p.m.

Mr. Burden: I should be quite prepared for that to be considered in another place. It cannot be considered today.
Despite all the statements which have been made by the two Members sitting on the Liberal bench today, although one is not exactly a Liberal, the provision has considerable support. It has the support of private veterinary surgeons knowledgeable in the equine side of their profession to whom I have written. It has the general support of the British Veterinary Association, which saw the difficulty of prescribing the age of ponies but wished that the general provision should be in the Bill. It has the support of auctioneers, who are the main sellers of the ponies, of the National Pony Society, of Ponies of Britain, of the British Horse Society, and of animal welfare organisations including the R.S.P.C.A. which also might in the past have been a little diffident about giving full support. It also has the support of the Welsh Pony and Cob Society. I recommend that the Amendment in its entirety be accepted.

Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine: A number of hon. Members have suggested that there is no conclusive evidence of the activities which are worrying many people. I have taken the precaution of consulting some of the breeders of ponies in the part of the world which I represent, which is as far from Orkney and Shetland as could be found. They, with their knowledge of breeding and of the trade, are satisfied that a Bill such as this is necessary. I am disposed to support them in their view. Their view is that the difficulties which arise may well be increased by the difficulties about pit ponies which have been referred to.


Breeders and experts in my part of the world would like to see the Amendment accepted in the form in which it stands on the Notice Paper.
I have also consulted the breeders of Shetland ponies in the south-eastern part of England. They have been unable to follow the figures which have been placed before the House. The figures which breeders of Shetland ponies in the South-East think would be realistic are much higher than those which have been suggested by the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) and the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan).
Therefore, although I am no expert on the right price for a Shetland pony, according to my evidence those who are engaged in breeding these ponies, certainly in some areas, believe that the Amendment should be accepted in the form in which it appears on the Notice Paper.

Mr. Richard Body: May I reply to the plea of my hon. Friend the Member for Tavistock (Mr. Heseltine) for proof? I do not know what standard of proof he wants, but I have here copies of a Dutch meat trade journal. The Dutch is probably as intelligible to him as it is to me, but I went to the Library and elsewhere for translations. There is no doubt that these copies, which are for this year, report all the imports into Holland of these ponies and there is no reason why the butchers and wholesale meat traders of Rotterdam and elsewere would have any interest in these ponies unless at least some of them were going for slaughter or for re-export to Germany and other parts of Europe.
The price of pony meat is given in these journals. The figures in the Amendments are utterly unrealistic and would wreck the purpose of the Bill. The demand for pony meat or "pony veal" as it is called, is strong and is gaining strength in Holland, if the Amendment of my hon. Friend or that of the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) were carried, it would mean

the continuation of this trade in slaughter

Mr. Speaker: The Question is—

Mr. Maclennan: On a point of order. I seek your advice about the position governing my first sub-Amendment, in line 7, leave out '£70' and insert:
'other than a pony of the Shetland breed not exceeding 10½ hands in height, £70, or in the case of such a pony of the Shetland breed, £40,'.
I understood that you, Mr. Speaker, had selected this Amendment for discussion, but I am not clear whether we may vote on it.

Mr. Speaker: What the hon. Gentleman must ask Mr. Speaker is whether he would allow a division. When Amendments are selected for discussion, they are not divided on unless for some special reason, hon. Members make representations and the special reason seems a good one to Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Maclennan: The special reason which I would adduce—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman need not argue it at this stage. I have listened to the debate. He may ask whether he can have a Division.

Mr. Maclennan: I am grateful to you for curtailing this matter, Mr. Speaker. May I ask for a Division on my first sub-Amendment?

Mr. Speaker: The Chair is in some difficulty. The broader Amendment would have been the third sub-Amendment, but unfortunately, for technical reasons, that cannot be divided on. In the circumstances, I am prepared to allow a Division on the first of the three sub-Amendments

Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment, in line 7, leave out '£70' and insert:
'other than a pony of the Shetland breed not exceeding 10½ hands in height, £70, or in the case of such a pony of the Shetland breed, £40,'.—[Mr. Maclennan.]

Question put, That the Amendment to the proposed Amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 49, Noes 42.

Division No. 205.]
AYES
[12.54 p.m.


Bennett, James (G'gow, Bridgeton)
Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward
Buchan, Norman


Bessell, Peter
Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Carmichael, Neil


Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)
Coe, Denis




Davies, Ednyfed Hudson (Conway)
Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Parker, John (Dagenham)


Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)
Kerr, Russell (Feltham)
Pavitt, Laurence


Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)
Lipton, Marcus
Pentland, Norman


Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Luard, Evan
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James


Forrester, John
Lubbock, Eric
Rees, Merlyn


Freeson, Reginald
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)


Gardner, Tony
MacDermot, Niall
Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy


Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.
Mackie, John
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Gunter, Rt. Hn. R. J.
Miller, Dr. M. S.
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)


Haseldine, Norman
Molloy, William
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Heseltine, Michael
Morgan, Elystan, (Cardiganshire)



Horner, John
Morris, Charles R, (Openshaw)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Howie, W.
Moyle, Roland
Mr. Alec Jones and


Irvine, Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)
Neal, Harold
Mr. Robert Maclennan.


Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)
O'Malley, Brian





NOES


Alldritt, Walter
Ford, Ben
Nott, John


Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n &amp; M'd'n)
Goodhart, Philip
Page, Graham (Crosby)


Bell, Ronald
Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)
Probert, Arthur


Biggs-Davison, John
Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
Quennell, Miss J. M.


Body, Richard
Hunt, John
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David


Braine, Bernard
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Burden, F. A.
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Silverman, Julius


Campbell, B. (Oldham, W.)
Kimball, Marcus
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Chapman, Donald
Kirk, Peter
Ward, Dame Irene


Crouch, David
Knight, Mrs. Jill
Weatherill, Bernard


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
McNair-Wilson, Michael
Wilkins, W. A.


English, Michael
McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)



Errington, sir Eric
Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)
Mr. Gordon Bagier and


Farr, John
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Mr. James Dance.


Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)

Further Amendment made to the proposed Amendment, in line 8, leave out 'either case' and insert 'any of those cases'.—[Mr. Maclennan.]

Amendment, as amended, agreed to.

1.0 p.m.

Mr. Farr: I beg to move Amendment No. 4, in page 1, line 23, leave out '15' and insert '14½'.
There was some discussion in Committee about this proposal. We had originally wished the height of 14 hands to be inserted in the Bill, but it was understood by our advisers and the advisers to the Minister that perhaps 14½ hands was a more appropriate definition of a pony as that accords with the measured height of a hand as recorded in the standard English dictionaries and books of reference. There has been comment on the fact that existing legislation refers to the height of a pony as 14 hands, but I understand that there is a possibility that the Government at a later stage may introduce legislation to bring the measurement for a pony into line with this recommendation of 14½ hands

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: No. 5, in line 25, leave out '15' and insert '14½'.—[Mr. Farr.]

Clause 2

PROVISIONS FOR EXPORTING PONIES

Mr. Burden: I beg to move Amendment No. 6, in page 2, line 1, after 'Food' insert:
'and the Secretary of State acting jointly'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harry Gourlay): With this Amendment we can discuss Amendment No. 7, in line 2, leave out 'he thinks' and insert 'they think'.

Mr. Burden: This Amendment is to ensure that the Secretary of State for Scotland has powers under the Bill and that his name shall be joined with that of the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: No. 7, in line 2, leave out 'he thinks' and insert 'they think'.—[Mr. Burden.]

Mr. Body: I beg to move Amendment No. 8, in page 2, line 5, leave out second 'Great Britain' and insert:
'the United Kingdom, the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man'.
This is a drafting Amendment to make the provision more accurate geographically.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Patrick McNair-Wilson: I beg to move Amendment No. 9, in line 9, after for', insert 'regulating and'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this Amendment we may discuss Amendment No. 10, in line 11, after 'for', insert 'prescribing and'.

Mr. McNair-Wilson: This proposal would strengthen a very important part of the Bill regarding premises at which ponies are to be rested. Not only would the Minister prescribe the premises but he would have a say in regulating them. That would be helpful.

Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine: One of these Amendments would make the words "regulating and prescribing" and the other would make them "prescribing and regulating". Can my hon. Friend give an explanation of the difference as the reason for it escapes me?

Mr. McNair-Wilson: I was merely a question of these Amendments trying to strengthen each other in case there were any difficulty. We were not certain how the grouping would be taken.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made, No. 10, in line 11, after 'for', insert prescribing and'.—[Mr. Patrick McNair-Wilson.]

Mr. Body: I beg to move Amendment No. 11, in line 14, leave out subsection (2) and insert:
(2) This section shall be construed as one with the Diseases of Animals Act 1950.
This Amendment is consequential on those already passed by the House.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 3

FURTHER RESTRICTIONS ON EXPORT OF CERTAIN PONIES

Mr. Farr: I beg to move Amendment No. 12, in page 2, line 18, leave out from beginning to 'unless' in line 28 and insert:
(1) In the Diseases of Animals Act 1950 there shall be inserted after section 40 the following section:—

Restriction on Export of Registered Ponies
40A.—(1) It shall not be lawful to ship, or attempt to ship, a registered pony in any vessel from any port in Great Britain to any port outside the United Kingdom, the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this Amendment we may discuss the following Amendments: No. 14, in line 36, leave out from 'inspector' to second 'or' in line 38, No. 15, in line 39, leave out 'said', No. 16, in line 42, leave out from 'section' to second 'the' in line 43, No. 18, in page 3, line 5, at end insert:
(2) In section 41 of the said Act of 1950 (enforcement of provisions as to shipment of horses) for the words 'four last foregoing sections', wherever they occur, there shall be substituted the words 'five last foregoing sections',
and No. 19, in page 3, line 6, leave out Clause 4.

Mr. Farr: The purpose of Amendment No. 12 is consolidation. Lines 18 to 28 are already incorporated in Clause 1 to which the House has already given approval. I turn to Amendment No. 14. The Clause refers to
any constable or any inspector appointed for the purposes of the Act of 1950 by the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food or the local authority.…
We understand that the Minister is not anxious to take upon his shoulders any responsibility relating to the purpose of this part of the Clause. Therefore, at his request, we propose to leave out these words so that the export certificate in respect of a registered pony shall be produced on demand by the master of a ship, not to an officer of the Ministry, but to a constable or any inspector appointed by a local authority.
Amendment No. 17 was tabled at the request of those responsible for these matters. The General Stud Book is not a society—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman misheard me. Amendment No. 17 is to be discussed on its own later.

Mr. Farr: I am sorry, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Amendment No. 18 is a drafting Amendment. Amendment No. 19 recommends that Clause 4 be omitted. Clause 4 is the enforcement Clause. We heard in Committee that enforcement will rely upon existing legislation with a


slight amendment. I wonder whether the penalties in the existing legislation are adequate. I fear, particularly as Clause 1 has been amended, that there will still be risks and temptations in the way of some exporters of ponies to try to contravene the admirable purpose of the Bill by methods known to them. The monetary reward and temptation are there. I would value the remarks of the Joint Parliamentary Secretary on this point.

1.15 p.m.

Mr. John Mackie: The hon. Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr) feels that the penalties might not be sufficient. We review the penalties over the years, and we shall consider them. They relate to the Diseases of Animals Act in general and the welfare Orders. It would be difficult to make penalties suit particular circumstances in which monetary reward was greater than in others. I know that there are great arguments about whether the penalty for stealing £2 million in a train robbery should be greater than for stealing a fiver in the House of Commons or elsewhere. We shall keep our eye on the penalties.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: No. 13, in line 29, leave out second 'the' and insert 'a'.

No. 14, in line 36, leave out from 'inspector' to second 'or' in line 38.

No. 15, in line 39, leave out 'said'.

No. 16, in line 42, leave out from 'section' to second 'the' in line 43.—[Mr. Farr.]

Mr. Patrick McNair-Wilson: I beg to move Amendment No. 17, in page 2, line 44, to leave out 'the General Stud Book'.
It will be obvious from an examination of the Clause that the General Stud Book is wrongly placed in it. The General Stud Book is not a society, whereas the other bodies referred to in the Clause are. Ponies are normally registered with the appropriate societies.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: No. 18, page 3, line 5, at end insert:
(2) In section 41 of the said Act of 1950 (enforcement of provisions as to shipment of

horses) for the words 'four last foregoing sections', wherever they occur, there shall be substituted the words 'five last foregoing sections'.
No. 19, page 3, line 6, leave out Clause 4.—[Mr. Farr.]

Clause 5

INTERPRETATION

Mr. Body: I beg to move Amendment No. 20, in page 3, line 13, to leave out Clause 5.
On the face of it, it may seem radical to propose the deletion of a whole Clause, but Clause 5 is unnecessary in view of the major Amendment which was carried earlier. One could describe this as a consequential Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 6

SHORT TITLE

Mr. Farr: I beg to move Amendment No. 21, in page 3, line 20, at end insert:
(2) This Act shall come into force on 1st January, 1970.
(3) In section 11 of the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1954 and in Schedule 2 to that Act (which provide for the adaptation to air transport of the Diseases of Animals Act 1950) any reference to the said Act of 1950 shall include a reference to that Act as amended by this Act.
The House will see that the Amendment comprises two subsections. The first contains the commencement date for the Act, as, I trust, the Bill will become very soon. Hon. Members may consider it strange to specify a clear starting date. It is very often provided in legislation that it shall come into force six months after Royal Assent. We have chosen to be a little more emphatic because we feel that this worthy Bill will have an unimpeded passage in its remaining stages through the House and also through another place. We are hopeful that it will reach the Statute Book towards the end of the summer.
We have consulted the relevant authorities and officials who will have to try to make the Bill work. They are the people who have to put it into operation. Their advice is that they would like about six months' notice to put into effect the various provisions contained in the Bill.
Therefore, on the assumption that Royal Assent will be granted towards the end of the summer, we suggest a clear commencement date of 1st January, 1970. Although this is not necessarily the usual course, it is a useful one to adopt. It will avoid a certain amount of confusion and will make it clear to those who have to operate the Act and, more important, those who will be affected by its working, that they must conform to the provisions laid down in the Bill by the beginning of 1970.

Mr. Bagier: For the very reasons explained by the hon. Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr), I hope that the Amendment is acceptable to the House, even though it is slightly unusual to include such a provision in a Bill, if for no other reason than that for which I briefly intervened earlier.
It has been stated by the National Coal Board that 2,000 pit ponies will be released from the pits by the end of 1970. When I saw the date of 1st January, 1970, I hoped that an even earlier date might be possible. That is the reason for my presence here today. Therefore, I certainly hope that if it is not possible to include a date earlier than the one suggested, the Amendment will be acceptable in preference to any later date.

Amendment agreed to.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

1.23 p.m.

Mr. Grimond: I do not want to delay the House long, but I should like to make one or two points before we part with the Bill. I am greatly relieved that we have been able to reduce the figure in Clause 1, otherwise I would certainly have been forced to vote against the Bill. This would have meant considerable heart-searching, both in view of the respect in which I hold its original sponsor, the hon. Member for Manchester, Withington (Sir R. Cary), who is unfortunately unable to be with us today, and also because there are certain objects of the Bill with which I fully sympathise. I still maintain, however, that £40 is not low enough, although it is a great improvement on the original figure.
It has been mentioned that the Minister still retains his discretion to alter the figure. I was glad to hear the Government say that they viewed this type of discretion, not with hostility, but with doubt about how often it should be used, because I do not think that any hon. Member would exactly welcome wide use of such discretion. I am glad to have it in the Bill, however, because it gives the Government residual power to alter the figure should it become apparent that this provision will inflict unnecessary hardship for no good purpose upon people such as the crofters of Unst.
Two points in the Bill have always worried me and I should like the sponsors to consider them with a view possibly, to introducing changes when the Bill reaches another place. I have had considerable support for my original points from the petition by the crofters, which states:
Owing to the climatic conditions and the geographical position of the Islands it is not feasible for mares to foal earlier than May—June and consequently some foals sold at the annual sale in the third week of October are just four months old. Again for climatic and geographical reasons, the sale cannot be held later. A number of these foals are sold for export and if the age limit is to be a minimum of five months, an appreciable quantity will remain unsold. As the Bill places a minimum price for export of £70"—
which it no longer does—
on any pony, many colt foals will remain unsold for this reason and we would suggest that a minimum of £30 is a far more reasonable figure.
Failing this Amendment being accepted—the Amendment to reduce the figure to £40 has been accepted—the petitioners ask for the Shetland Isles to be excluded from the provisions of the Bill.
As I read the relevant Clause in regard to the age at which foals may be sold and exported, it is Clause 3(1,b), which takes effect, I understand, at the moment of export. That is to say, a foal may be sold for export at the annual sales in Unst when it is four months old as long as it is not exported until it is five months old. This may do something to reassure the crofters, but it means that the animal must be kept somewhere for a month. The sponsors might, perhaps, look at this again. It seems to me to be another case in which discretion might be left to the inspectors.

Mr. Burden: As the Clause is now drawn, the specific age in both cases is withdrawn and it is a matter of whether the foal is too young to travel.

Mr. Grimond: I am obliged. That meets the point. I may not have read the Bill sufficiently closely in its new form to understand that that point is wholly covered.
The other point which has been mentioned in previous debates is the question of the movement of these animals. We all share the same object that the minimum hardship or cruelty should be inflicted upon animals. When I say that it is the view of the Shetland Stud Book Society, as it is, that these animals should be moved quickly from Unst, that is the view of people who are much concerned about the welfare of these animals and also it is the view of the crofters. Of course, there should be adequate rest periods and they should be looked after on the voyage. I want to correct any impression which I may have given that they should be pushed through willy nilly in any sort of condition.
Not only is this a matter on which the welfare societies, the local representatives of the Scottish Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, and the stud book society feel deeply, but I do not know whether the sponsors of the Bill realise that the facilities we require do not exist. I think I am right in saying that there is no lairage adequate to the Bill at any Scottish port. I am glad to see that that is confirmed by the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. This is a matter which causes us concern.
I understand the sponsors of the Bill to say that the exporters, or private enterprise, must put up the lairage. I think I am right in saying that the Government will not provide it. This is a point which the sponsors should consider. We have no power to order people to provide adequate lairage facilities. Attention should be given to this.
Mention was made also of the question of slaughter—

Mr. Burden: Is it not a fact that when cattle, pigs and sheep are exported, it is mandatory for them to rest in lairage before being shipped abroad? Whoever provided that lairage for those animals—

it was considered that they must be given proper lairage—must equally provide it under the Bill.

Mr. Grimond: I agree with the hon. Member, but I do not think that this is of much satisfaction for the Shetland pony, to say that we need lairage and it ought to be there; though it is not. We have no sanction, as I said, to produce it. That is all I am saying. If it can be produced, possibly it will be. Certainly it is as important and ought to be provided, but I do not think it is at the moment.
On the question of slaughter, I am sure that the sponsors of the Bill do not want to give the impression that they view with equanimity the need for large-scale slaughter of Unst ponies. This would be most unfortunate, because there is a perfectly good market for those ponies for riding and so on, and there is no need to slaughter these unfortunate ponies.
It may be that slaughter will have to come about, and I have some suggestions from Mrs. Cox, who is active in this matter, and who says
It would be desirable if surplus scrub animals should be sold for slaughter, and that they should be slaughtered in registered, Government sponsored or approved, slaughterhouses.
But I do not want to encourage this in general.
When it is suggested that the Highlands and Islands Development Board should put up an abattoir in Shetland I think we must be realistic. Someone very kindly said that I am in touch with the Board, and, indeed, I am, and it has done good work in the North Isles, but it has a limited amount of money, and it has a great many calls upon its money, and I would have some sympathy with the Board in saying, "You are putting us in an awkward position if Parliament passes a Bill which, in our view, is not necessary." I think, broadly speaking, this is the Board's view. I would have some sympathy with the Board in saying, "The Bill puts crofters in Shetland into difficulties which we think need not be inflicted upon them, and we do not see why you should come to us and say that we must get them out of those difficulties by spending a large part of our money on a slaughterhouse."
Even if there should be as there might well be an addition to the abattoirs in Orkney or Shetland, we would still have to dispose of hides etc., and this would have to be a general undertaking for slaughter of all herds of animals not necessarily confined to ponies. However, the point I want to make is that, like lairage, at the moment it does not exist, and it will not exist unless some entrepreneur thinks it worth while to put it up. Therefore I do not think the sponsors should stress this possibility too much as regards my constituency, though I agree that in other parts of the country, as was pointed out by the hon. Member for Tavistock (Mr. Michael Heseltine), the slaughter of ponies may increase and that that may be inevitable.
So I am not opposed to the whole Bill, but I say as a matter of fact that there are certain difficulties which will have to be got over, and, at any rate, these facilities do not exist just now.
I am greatly relieved that the figure has been reduced to £40. Again I give good wishes to the sponsors of the Bill for their objectives. But I do believe it would have been wiser if they had consulted the relevant societies before the Bill was introduced, and I think that the Bill will lead to great difficulty in administration Therefore, I would ask them and the Government and all concerned, when this Bill goes to another place, to look at some of these points which I have raised.

1.34 p.m.

Mr. John Mackie: I should like to say a word or two about the Bill at this point. I think it must be perfectly plain to the sponsors of the Bill that during our debates upon it, including the debates in Committee, the Government have not given the Bill support because we have always said that there is a wealth of legislation which can deal with most of the points—nearly all of the points—which hon. Members have brought forward. However, all that does not detract from the Government's appreciation of the objectives which the sponsors of the Bill have had in mind, and particularly the hon. Member for Manchester, Withington (Sir R. Cary). We are all very sorry that he will not see his Bill get its Third Reading today, and I would like to associate myself with the remarks

made earlier today, that we all wish him a speedy recovery.
I do not want to say much more than this, but I would say that if the Bill gets its Third Reading in the form in which it has been amended it will be the Ministry's job to administer the Bill, and it will be administered.
The points which the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) raised are very real ones. The Government do not have to provide lairage. It has to be provided by the shippers or exporters. There is some lairage in some of the ports of Scotland. Whether it is suitable for ponies I do not know. If some of the lairage that is there at present were made suitable for the job, that would be all to the good, but I should make the point that it is not the Government's job to do this. Nor is it the Government's job to be valuers. I presume that the sponsors of the Bill have looked into all this and have appreciated the added costs which by this Bill they are putting on the pony trade, and I am sure that the hon. Member for Gillingham (Mr. Burden) does appreciate this.
As to the Amendment which was carried just now, I would say to the sponsors that I think it should have been carried. I think that there might have been a better Amendment if there had been some association between the three Amendments, but I appreciate the technicalities of trying to amend a Clause by amending Amendments to it. I know that a bit of difficulty can be caused by that, as someone has said, there is still another place, and we may manage there to make the Bill a little better.
Meantime, it is essential to protect a genuine trade. I do not think the hon. Member for Gillingham should shake his head.

Mr. Burden: I am not shaking my head.

Mr. Mackie: This is a genuine trade, and, as the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland said, the Shetland pony trade is a genuine trade, and, for that matter, as the hon. Member for Tavistock (Mr. Michael Heseltine) said, the genuine small pony trade should be protected.
There were various points raised, and I do not want again to cross swords with


the hon. Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr) on the question of prices. It is a genuine point which can be made by either party, just what price will stop slaughter? As for ponies and the limit of 14½ hands, we must make it clear that it is not 14·2 but 14½, for these figures have been a little mixed up. The hon. Member for Harborough may argue about £40, but that will not detract from the market for many people, because small ponies of that size really kill out very badly indeed: they are potbellied. I do not think it would be an attractive proposition at all to slaughter them. So we had to make that Amendment to protect a genuine trade.
My hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Bagier) raised the question of the Coal Board's ponies at the pits. I understand that the Coal Board tries to see that retired ponies go to good homes, and I understand that the large bulk of the ponies will be retired from the pits by 1970. I understand that Lord Robens has said that there will be no more ponies in the pits after 1970. I think my hon. Friend mentioned the figure of 2,000 ponies to be released by that time. No doubt, some special effort will be necessary to see that they go to good homes, but it would be inappropriate to let that point be an influence against the Bill. Anyway, it is the Minister of Power who has responsibility for the welfare of pit ponies, and the Ministry of Power has not asked for anything special to be done about them by means of this Bill.

Mr. Bagier: What Lord Robens said to me was that his organisation was doing its utmost to see that ponies go to the best homes possible—riding schools, etc. He went on to say that it would be impossible to control resale of ponies. This is what worries me. This is a very large number of ponies to go on the market all at once, and he specifically referred me to this Bill as a means of stopping their possible export.

Mr. Mackie: These ponies will come under the general aegis of the Bill when it comes into force at the beginning of 1970 if they cannot be dealt with otherwise.
As I say, the Government have not been supporting the Bill through all its

various stages, but, nevertheless, when it gets its Third Reading it will be operated, and I hope it will succeed in what is, as I have said, the very worthy objective of its sponsors in preventing cruelty to animals. Of course, the Government are with them in that respect.

1.40 p.m.

Mr. Patrick McNair-Wilson: It is sad that my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Withington (Sir R. Cary) who did so much original work on the Bill, is not here today, because I believe that we are now within sight of a great milestone in the story of the prevention of cruelty to animals. It is never easy to get Parliament to take firm measures in this field. The unanimity which has prevailed throughout today and in Committee has shown the real determination on the part of hon. Members, and particularly on the part of the Minister, who has been generous in his help, to ensure that something which was clearly wrong should be put right.
The right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) has tried to belittle the Bill and to point to difficulties. Unfortunately, even the Minisster has on occasions said that the Bill is unnecessary. I do not believe that it is. Too many facts and stories about cruelty are available for the House to ignore them. Today we are setting upon its final course a Bill which in my constituency of the New Forest will be welcomed. There will be real rejoicing amongst animal lovers, particularly children, and pony societies in that constituency. This will be true all over the country. The Bill is a great step forward, but it is not the end of the road. Other action will have to be taken. By giving the Bill a Third Reading we shall make a major contribution to solving the problems of animal cruelty in Britain.

1.42 p.m.

Mr. W. A. Wilkins: I do not think that my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary went very far to allay the fears felt by some of us about what is to happen to pet ponies. The Long Title says that this is
A Bill to improve the conditions under which ponies are exported; to prohibit or retrict the export of certain ponies".
Generally speaking, the ponies referred to in the Bill are the famous names which


we all know. I suppose that it never occurred to the sponsors of the Bill to think about what will happen to pit ponies when evenually their useful lives in the pits have ended and they are brought to the surface.
We hope that someone—perhaps the hon. Member for Gillingham (Mr. Burden)—will tell us exactly what will happen as a result of the operation of the Bill. Already several hundred—perhaps thousands—of ponies have been taken out of the pits. So far the National Coal Board has been reasonably successful in ensuring that the ponies have gone to people who can provide for them, care for them, and treat them as almost members of their families. We were advised by the Press recently that practically all the ponies now working in the mines were likely to be withdrawn within the next two years. The figure is estimated at about 2,000. I have been down a number of mines in South Wales, including the Naval Colliery at Pen-y-Graig.

Mr. Alec Jones: My hon. Friend will not be able to do so again, because it is now closed.

Mr. Wilkins: I never regret hearing that a mine has been closed, provided that reasonable alternative employment is provided. On my visits to mines in South Wales I have seen ponies. Working in a mine is not a pleasant occupation for an animal, let alone for a man. I have been enormously impressed by the great care that is lavished on the ponies by those who have to attend them and drive them in the mines. The men concerned accord the ponies treatment which is almost equivalent to that which they would accord to their own children. I believe that I speak for these men when I say that it is vitally important that a comfortable future is assured for these ponies when their labour in the mines is dispensed with. These ponies have spent the whole of their working lives in darkness.

Mr. James Dempsey: Coming from a mining community I, too, am interested in the employment of ponies in the darkness of the pits. Can my hon. Friend give us an idea of when "eventually" will be? In this age of modernisation, should not

these ponies have already been brought up from the pits to enjoy the sunlight?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harry Gourlay): Order. We cannot pursue the question of pit ponies too far, unless it can be related to the export of pit ponies, which is covered by the Bill.

Mr. Wilkins: I referred to this matter because I read in the Press that it was expected that they would be brought up within two years. I was hoping to relate this to the Bill by expressing my anxiety as to how successful the Board will be in placing these ponies. The Coal Board deserves our admiration in that it has said that it wants to be assured that these ponies will go to good homes where they can be cared for for the rest of their lives. Do the sponsors of the Bill consider that the Bill provides some protection? There may be some difficulties about these ponies being placed. What will happen then? Somebody may acquire them and attempt to sell them to somebody on the Continent.

Mr. Burden: There should be a declaration that negotiations will be opened between the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the National Coal Board so that every pony coming from the pits is marked in some way which can be clearly detected or that a certificate is issued.

Mr. Simon Mahon: Would there not be a feeling of tremendous abhorrence and revulsion on the part of the ordinary general public, in an industrial country which has depended for centuries on pit ponies, if these little animals were to be treated in an inhuman way?

Mr. Farr: I would not interrupt the hon. Gentleman if I did not think that I could set his genuine fears at rest. The new subsection which has been agreed to provides in line 6 that
the Minister or, in Scotland, the Secretary of State
must be
satisfied that the pony is intended for breeding, riding or exhibition".

Mr. Wilkins: I was about to come to a conclusion because, as I have said, my interest is principally on the question of the pit ponies. I am not knowledgeable on the other aspects. I think that


I have succeeded in my objective. It is obvious from the interjections that I have at least focused some attention on the problem. I am delighted to have been reassured by the hon. Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr) that he thinks that there is protection in the Bill. When I put my name to the Motion calling for a Third Reading debate, it was because I wanted an opportunity to raise the case of the pit ponies. I welcome the Bill and I hope that it will get its Third Reading and become quickly operative.

1.50 p.m.

Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine: I hope that when the news is sent to my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Withington (Sir R. Cary) that the Bill has received Third Reading, if that is the case, it will be received by him with pleasure and make a contribution to his speedy return to the House. He feels very keenly about the Bill and about the difficulties it is meant to deal with. We all appreciate, too, the work done by my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham (Mr. Burden) when my hon. Friend the Member for Withington was unable to go on with the Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham has put in a great deal of work on the Bill. He has been supported by a number of hon. Members and I want particularly to mention two of them—my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr) and my hon. Friend the Member for Holland with Boston (Mr. Body). While, as I have said, a number of others have played an active part, I think they will agree that those two deserve special mention.
I am sorry that the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has left us. There are not many occasions on which I find myself able to agree with him and support what he has said, and I should have liked the opportunity to say in his presence that I think that he has been most helpful in the end with the Bill. In his speech on Second Reading, when he outlined all the difficulties he could foresee in the Bill as drafted, I had the impression that he was about to say that the Bill would be opposed root and branch, but in fact many of the difficulties he then raised have been overcome and we have been able to produce a Measure which has met the points worrying him.
It has been suggested that there is no real evidence that the Bill is needed. On Second Reading, the Joint Parliamentary Secretary twice said that he had no reason to believe that any such organised trade existed. In Committee, on four occasions he reinforced that view. Most of us associated with the Bill have received a considerable volume of what at least appears to be evidence that there is just such a trade. Those who have studied that evidence and have consulted breeders and others associated with the pony trade feel fairly satisfied that there is a genuine need for the Bill and that the anxieties which have been widely expressed are based on a solid foundation. I mentioned in Committee the increase in the number of Welsh cob ponies exported in recent years. In 1957, there was no export of Welsh ponies but in 1966 there was an export of 1,302. I do not believe that that could have been due entirely to a great upsurge of interest in riding ponies.
The point I found most difficult to follow throughout the development of the Bill was that ponies were excluded from the Diseases of Animals Act. It seemed illogical that, whereas in the Act, three types of horses were prescribed, we were assured on Second Reading that, in the Joint Parliamentary Secretary's view, it would be impossible to extend the provision to ponies. That illogicality has been removed and I know that the work we have done on this has received the support not only of breeders but of the National Ponies Society and many others. The Bill is not aimed at breeders of ponies but at those who deal with ponies in a way which demonstrates that they are not interested in the welfare of the animals.

Mr. Peter Mahon: Is the hon. Gentleman satisfied that, within the categories of
… breeding, riding or exhibition …
particularly that of exhibition, no cruelty will ensue?

Mr. Godman Irvine: I think I can say that I am satisfied on that point.

1.56 p.m.

Mr. Bagier: I will not detain the House long—just long enough to say how much I welcome the sympathy and support of my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South (Mr. Wilkins), together with what


seems to be some of the pending support of some of our colleagues who have come in to take notice of our proceedings.

Mr. Simon Mahon: Perhaps I can point out to my hon. Friend that I promised my support for the Bill to the hon. Member for Manchester, Withington (Sir R. Cary), for whom I have the highest possible regard.

Mr. Bagier: I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Bootle (Mr. Simon Mahon) is a great humanitarian and has been following the interests of the Bill for some time. I want to make clear that my principal interest is in pit ponies. One of the difficulties which has been facing me in my correspondence and in working with the National Coal Board has been that of stopping pit ponies being exported for slaughter. This is repugnant not only to the Chairman of the Board and me but to many people throughout the country, as my correspondence shows.
The Board goes to considerable lengths to ensure that the pit ponies, loved and respected by miners who have worked with them and by people who have always found it rather strange that ponies should live the existence they do down the pit, are not turned loose on the market without protection against conditions which would be an inhumane and certainly a poor reward for a lifetime of hard work down the pits.
The figures are somewhat involved. Since 1947, when about 20,000 ponies were down the pits, the number has been reduced until now we are reaching the last 2,000, and it is the intention of the Board to see that, by the end of next year, no more ponies will be working below ground. However, it was foreseen that there would be difficulty with such a large number of ponies coming on to the market in a comparatively short time.
The Board naturally wants to do all it can to see that the ponies are looked after properly, and in this it naturally has the full co-operation of the R.S.P.C.A. in finding suitable stabling, even in private homes. I should point out that a private individual cannot just get a pit pony for the asking. There has to be a complete examination of the conditions in which the pony would be kept because it is not unusual for pit ponies to be

neglected in private homes just because of ignorance of how to look after them properly. The Board has done all in its power to see that ponies released from the pits are looked after.
However, the Board has pointed out one large loophole to me—that it cannot guarantee that resale after the first sale will not take place and that it cannot be expected to accept responsibility for what takes place afterwards. This has been a loophole through which ponies have been sent abroad to the slaughter market.

Mr. Peter Mahon: Does not my hon. Friend consider that the good auspices of the R.S.P.C.A. could be invoked?

Mr. Bagier: I accept that, and the National Coal Board goes to great lengths to ensure that in the first instance of sale its ponies go to a decent environment.
The difficulty has arisen over the possibility of exporting them, and I am grateful that the Bill takes care of that loophole. Its only fault lies in its timing. We are told that it will come into force on 1st January. 1970. I hope that the Joint Parliamentary Secretary will consult with the Coal Board to ensure that not too many ponies are turned on to the market prior to this legislation coming into force.
I welcome the Bill, I hope that it will impose strict controls on the disposal of pit ponies. I want to see it given a speedy passage through the other place and become operative on the date proposed.

2.0 p.m.

Mr. Farr: I, too, welcome the Bill and take this opportunity of paying tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Withington (Sir R. Cary). I am sure that its passage through the House will do a great deal of good to my hon. Friend and help expedite his return to our deliberations.
The picture has been changed somewhat by the evidence to which the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Bagier) and others have drawn attention about the imminent possibility of a large number of pit ponies being released by the National Coal Board before the end of the year. After all, a horse or pony in a pit does not have much of a life. It is no more natural than life for a


human being in a pit. We welcome the mechanisation of the coal mining industry and want to see it proceed apace. At the same time, it is our duty to see that ponies which have kept the wheels of industry turning below ground are safeguarded in terms of their future destinations and treatment.
I feel that insufficient emphasis has been given to the power of the Minister in connection with Clause 1, as amended. The right hon. Gentleman has the power by order to vary the values contained in the Clause. That is a very real safeguard. Not only is there the possibility that those values may be wrong today. It is almost certain that in a few years' time the figures in the Clause will be hopelessly out of date. We have seen a rapid fall in the value of the £ since the last war, and there is not much chance of it coming to an end. In a very short time there will be a real case for considering whether the values are adequate.
I want also to draw attention to the requirements relating to lairage. The point has been touched on by the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond). The lairage requirements are to be found in Clause 2, and there is a reference there to the manner in which ponies in transport shall be treated. However, the Clause is ineffective, because we are only paying lip-service to the requirements until the relevant Orders are made.
1 hope that the Minister will not heed the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman that it is not a matter which is of great urgency—

Mr. Grimond: I would not like that to go on the record unchallenged. The point is that the Minister has said that he does not regard it as the Government's business to provide the lairage. Obviously, that is the fact. As I under-it, we are dependent upon private enterprise, possibly assisted by Government grants.

Mr. Farr: It is provided in Clause 2(1):
The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food shall"—
not "may"—
by order make such provision as he thinks necessary or expedient …",

and there follow three paragraphs, the first referring to prohibiting the export of ponies by sea or air, the second prescribing the premises at which and the periods during which ponies are to be rested, and the third regulating the cleansing and supervision of the premises. Whether the Minister likes it or not, the Bill says emphatically that it is and will be his responsibility to see that adequate lairage is provided.

Mr. Buchan: I think that the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) is correct. It is the function of the Minister to prescribe the premises. There is no reference to providing them. He is responsible for prescribing them. Clearly it is not the function of the Minister to provide lairage, as the hon. Member for Gillingham (Mr. Burden) made clear earlier.

Dr. Gray: Before my hon. Friend sits down, would he allow me—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Mr. Harry Gourlay): Order. If the hon. Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr) wishes to give way, the hon. Member for Yarmouth (Dr. Gray) may intervene, but he cannot ask the Minister to give way.

Mr. Farr: I think that I had better pass from the point. I was attempting to say that the powers are in the Bill if the Minister uses them.
A great deal will depend on the evidence that the Minister receives from hon. Members, members of the public and the different societies, about the adequacy or otherwise of the facilities available in the Orkneys and Shetlands, because presumably no such orders will be made if they are adequate. However, if he considers that ponies are being caused unnecessary suffering because there is no apparent assembly point before they are shipped and there is no apparent assembly point at the other end after they have travelled 250 miles, he may consider that a sufficient reason to lay an order before the House to alter the position.
There is one disturbing point in something that I was told by the Minister the other day. We were having a number of consultations and meetings with him. I had understood that the Bill was to be the subject of a free vote. However, the


last division was decided by a narrow majority of five or six, and I was distressed to learn that the Labour Whips were directing hon. Members opposite into the "Aye" Lobby. I am sure that the Joint Parliamentary Secretary would not be a party to that, because he gave a clear undertaking that there would be a free vote. Nevertheless, it should be recorded that a number of hon. Members voted in the "Aye" Lobby because they were directed into it by a Government Whip.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We cannot pursue this matter too far. We are concerned, not with procedure, but with the Third Reading of the Bill.

Mr. Buchan: Further to the point of order.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: It was not a point of order.

Mr. Buchan: One cannot have it both ways. One cannot exonerate my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary and then suggest that somebody has betrayed him. There were views on both sides of the House, and clearly the Government and Opposition Whips are entitled to enter either Lobby as they wish.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have said that a discussion on the procedure of the House is out of order.

Mr. Buchan: I thought that I was being allowed to intervene.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Very shortly.

Mr. Buchan: I did not make the suggestion which hon. Members opposite thought I made. I said that the Whips had the right to vote as they saw fit.

Mr. Farr: My point is that the whole character and complexion of the Bill has been changed by the slight Amendments to the figures in Clause 1. It must be a cause for concern that, despite a clear undertaking to the contrary, Government Whips directed Government Members to vote in the "Aye" Lobby. I have chapter and verse from more than one Member who took that action.

Mr. Peter Mahon: May I assure the hon. Gentleman that the directors had inconspicuous success.

Mr. Farr: For a long time the hon. Gentleman has been respected on both sides of the House as a man of character and independence, but I can tell him that some of his colleagues who have occupied more illustrious positions than any he has yet held were not so independently-minded and took the directions which they were afforded by their Whips' office.

Mr. Biggs-Davidson: In view of the confusing observation of the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, it should be clearly put on the record that there was no intervention by Opposition Whips in the Division. The impression was given that the Whips on both sides of the House were at work.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: This is becoming quite irregular. The hon. Member for Harborough must not pursue it.

Mr. Farr: I submit, with the greatest respect, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that the whole character of the Bill was changed by the Division which was settled by five votes.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I respect the hon. Gentleman's view, but it would be out of order to discuss what happened during a Division.

Mr. Farr: I will not pursue the matter further, Mr. Deputy Speaker, except to make it clear that there were no Whips on the Opposition side. None of my colleagues would for a moment identify me with the Whips' office, although I stood for a moment or two at the entrance to the "No" Lobby.
The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, who has paid considerable attention to the Bill, has been of great assistance to us. He indicated that the ponies affected by the figure of £40 would be fairly small. He gave an indication of their size by putting his hand down to his knee. They are not as small as that. By an Amendment, the height has been raised from 12 to 12½ hands. A pony of that height would stand about 4 ft. 2in., which is not an inconsiderable animal to get in a cart.

Mr. Buchan: I do not think the hon. Gentleman is correct. The size remains at 12 hands. The Amendment of the hon.


Member for Tavistock (Mr. Michael Heseltine) was not allowed for technical reasons. May I point out that, even if my hon. Friend put his hand down to his knee, he is a very tall man.

Mr. Farr: It is nice to be able to preserve a sense of humour.
One or two hon. Members opposite have asked what would happen to retired pit ponies. No hon. Member intends to allow any retired pit ponies to be exported for consumption on the continent. But we are very much in the hands of the Ministry and the Ministry's veterinary service who will interpret the Bill. A considerable amount of discretion is allowed in Clause 1 as amended. Paragraph (a) of Amendment No. 1 provides that a pony may not be exported if the Minister is not satisfied that it is intended
for breeding, riding, or exhibition.
It is difficult to lay down chapter and verse. We must rely on the good will, knowledge and skill of the officers in the Ministry service who will interpret the Clause. The Clause lays a great responsibility on their shoulders.
Paragraph (b) of Amendment No. 1 provides that before shipment the pony shall be individually inspected by a veterinary inspector and
certified in writing by the inspector to be capable of being conveyed to the Port to which it is to be shipped …
Again, we are asking the Ministry's veterinary inspectors to use their discretion, not only in inspecting the animal to ensure that it is fit to travel, but in rejecting it if he is of the opinion that the animal is
heavy in foal, showing fullness of udder or too old to travel or, being a foal, is … too young to travel".
A great responsibility is being put on the Ministry officials and veterinary staff. I welcome the Bill, but the House should realise the extent to which we shall rely upon these men to play their part in implementing the Bill.

2.18 p.m.

Mr. Simon Mahon: I am delighted to be able to say a few words on this most important and humane Bill. I think that I am the only Lancastrian who has had the pleasure of speaking today. The House has tremendous esteem and regard for the hon. Member for Manchester, Withington (Sir R. Cary). We are pleased

that the Bill has been successful and we hope it will receive a unanimous Third Reading. Some months ago I undertook to the hon. Gentleman to give the Bill what support I could
It may be thought that the question of ponies is a far cry from the port of Bootle or Liverpol. As has been said, Bootle is part of the biggest port in Lancashire. Contrary to general belief, Lancashire is not only a great industrial centre but, I believe, the second largest producer of agricultural goods in the country. Both above and below ground, ponies have played a tremendous part in the history and life of Lancashire. We applaud the work that my hon. Friend has done and we are delighted that the hon. Member for Gillingham (Mr. Burden) has given him such wonderful support. I say, without any degree of over-emphasis, that we are grateful to both hon. Members.
Measures have been passed in this House which have upset the conscience of this country to a great degree in recent years. When people see that the contents of the Bill are receiving the witness and the application of Members of the House of Commons, they will applaud the kindness and the consideration that is being shown for dumb animals. This is a sign of how far civilisation is extending. Some of us feel that children do not get sufficient care either before or after they are born. Nevertheless, we will not be churlish in our admiration for a House of Commons that can display such sympathy for these dumb animals.
I am sure that we all thank the Government and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food for what they have done towards the passing of the Bill. It has been said that the Whips were on this morning. I can assure the hon. Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr) that no Whips were on me. I have known my right hon. Friends to be wrong only three times in 15 years and I have recorded my vote against them on those occasions. There was no application to the reverse this morning. I saw no Whips being placed on the Lobby. I went into the other Lobby of my own free will.
Those of us in Lancashire who know the history of coal would like to be reassured that the wishes of the National Coal Board that the remaining 2,000 pit ponies should be carefully looked after and should end their days in proper


animal dignity, will be met. We have been told that this will be done, but we know that between the passing of the Bill and the execution of what the Bill enacts, many things can change. This comes down to the human application of the Bill. It can be very difficult, because it is a long way from the Orkneys to the Port of Liverpool, and many things can happen. We have been told that the Port of Yarmouth is also being used. People want to be assured that we will maintain proper standards wherever these little animals are concerned.
People say that we are being over-emotive about the pit ponies. How many times has any Member of Parliament, when he has shown adequate and proper concern for some aspect of his Parliamentary life, had the experience that those who do not agree with him say, "He is over-emotionally concerned"? My own party has accused me of this so many times in my lifetime that it is becoming almost nauseous. But we are concerned with animals which have done so much for society. They have had to live a completely unnatural life for our benefit. Without extending the point too far, I want to re-emphasise what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South (Mr. Wilkins) and by other right hon. and hon. Members. We applaud the regard that is being given to these little servants of industry who have done so much, and we hope that these 2,000 ponies will be found adequate homes.
A point has been raised about the people in the crofting islands of this country. We are concerned about their aspect of life and the way that the Bill can possibly affect them. Those of us who know how hard and difficult their life can be were concerned when the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond), quite properly, put the case for his constituents. One wonders why the export of one or two ponies should make such a tremendous difference to the economic life of those people who have a tremendous struggle to live. It may be a reminder to Her Majesty's Government that these people, who have given such tremendous culture to these islands and always add lustre to any part of the country to which they go, have a right and are owed a duty to have their conditions looked at.
The hon. Member for Harborough spoke about the containment and shipment of animals. I know something about this. I have been appalled in Liverpool so many times at the conditions in which animals of all kinds have been either imported or exported. The hon. Gentleman dealt with that matter adequately up to the point of shipment. But what about the sea vessel which is to take the animals out of the country? Would it not be an omission in the Bill if we enacted here that we should follow an animal from the Orkneys to the Port of Liverpool and then the inspector responsible should inspect the animal's condition and pass it over, having done all that humane work, to be put into conditions which would be impossible if they obtained on land? No doubt it could be argued that the provisions could be covered by the Board of Trade. But right hon. and hon. Members may not know—or they may know—that there have been appalling instances of cruelty to animals in transit and at sea which have passed unnoticed. This applies not only to ponies, but to other animals including horses and dogs.
We should like to be assured that what happened in Ireland recently will not happen here. People in this country were appalled at the situation in Ireland. It got tremendous international publicity. The passage at sea of many of these animals required a great deal of investigation.

Mr. Burden: Under the original Export of Horses Act there are regulations, I think the Minister will agree, whereby the conditions under which animals are shipped and the partitioning and so on must be of certain standards. If these regulations are carried out they must be all right, but we do not know whether they are.

Mr. Mahon: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for pointing that out. He says, correctly, that under the Export of Horses Act we thought this would be the position. But we want to be certain that the details of the Bill and details of the Act which the hon. Gentleman has just mentioned are put into practice. Often we get evidence about things that happen at sea, even to human beings, because Board of Trade standards are not kept. I should be out of order if I said that even between Larne and


Stranraer tremendous things have happened which denote and prove the point that often Board of Trade standards are completely ignored, particularly concerning animals. I speak with knowledge of this. I was born on ships and I have lived on ships for most of my life. Often, for economic and other reasons, these things are not—

Mr. Wilkins: May I ask my hon Friend's nationality?

Mr. Mahon: I say I was born on ships. I was born and bred on ships. If any hon. Member in this House knows more about ships coming in and out of Liverpool, I am prepared to give way. I shall not pursue that point because it would be out of order. I have done fairly well up to now.
The conscience of the country has been shocked by what has happened in the past. People will applaud the hon. Member for Manchester, Withington and the hon. Member for Gillingham, who have done so much. I thank the Government for what they have done, and I am very pleased to be here today to redeem a promise that I made to the hon. Member.

2.32 p.m.

Mr. John Biggs-Davison: The ground has been well ridden over and it is not necessary for me to say more than a few words in support of the Bill. Some people may think it strange that at a time when Government are in confusion and our national finances are so precarious the House of Comons should be spending the better part of a Friday discussing ponies. But this is an important Measure, and I am glad to be able to support it.
It is very much a matter of conscience for our constituents. I agree with the hon. Member for Bootle (Mr. Simon Mahon); this is a matter about which people can wax emotional—and they are not to be criticised for that. I cannot verify the exact quotation, but it was Winston Churchill who said:
Never apologise for emotion; to do so is to apologise for truth.
Therefore, the hon. Member for Bootle is quite justified in feeling emotional about this question.
There are no pit ponies in my constituency but there are plenty of ponies.

There are plenty of pony lovers, both children and older people, as my post has informed me. My constituency is on the fringes of Epping Forest and Grange Farm, Chigwell, pony riding for the disabled is provided. I have received considerable correspondence on this matter. I am glad to be at one with my constituents in pressing support for the Bill, despite the imperfections mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr). If we give the Bill a Third Reading the news will be a splendid "Get well" present for the hon. Member for Manchester, Withington (Sir R. Cary) to whom the Bill owes so much. To him my constituents, among others, will be grateful.

2.34 p.m.

Dr. Gray: At a time when factory farming is increasing and the Government have not accepted the Bramble Report people might think it misplaced for us to deal with ponies today, but I do not think it is. People in this country do not eat dogs; they are eaten in Malaysia. People in this country do not eat ponies, although they are eaten on the continent of Europe. In our community these animals are held in extremly high esteem, and people have become deeply indignant about the fact that hundreds of ponies are exported each year from Great Yarmouth. In all my discussions concerning this question with constituents and local officers of different kinds none has maintained that these ponies were not exported to be eaten.
The Bill is to be welcomed because it meets the sentiments and emotions of many of our people. A campaign has been conducted in my constituency by a Mrs. B. Hamilton of Bungay, who lives in the constituency of Lowestoft, and a Mrs. M. Kelly of Acle, who lives in my constituency. Further, many ordinary people who are not concerned with the welfare of animals in general have written to me about the conditions under which ponies are exported from Gorleston-on-Sea, and when I took this matter up with the Port and Haven Commissioners they wrote as follows:
The Commissioners are not actively concerned with the shipping of ponies as that is carried out by Superior International Limited"—
that being a firm with an extremely good reputation with imports of fruit through


the Port of Great Yarmouth. Its vessels would return in ballast to Holland if they did not take ponies on the return journey. The letter continues:
The company informs me that the vessels are inspected and certificated by the Ministry of Transport as to ventilation, lighting, etc., and each shipment is under the supervision of the R.S.P.C.A., the police and … a veterinary surgeon.
The Minister, in a letter, told me that he had asked the R.S.P.C.A. to inspect the accommodation for ponies and that the Society had replied to the effect that in its view there was no ground for complaint. The lairage itself is built and maintained to the strictest Ministry of Agriculture demands. The Minister has been to look at the lairage himself.
According to the Port and Haven Commissioners, any misdemeanour—even to the smallest degree—would mean severe censure or the loss of the certificate. Ponies have a minimum of 10 hours in the lairage, and it is open to representatives of the Port and Haven Commissioners at any time.
Nevertheless widespread alarm exists in the constituency, as is shown by a letter written to a local newspaper by Mrs. Kelly, of Acle. She says:
It is our business, however, when they buy British animals and transport them under appalling inhumane conditions—and subject them to vile acts of brutality.
Then there is a description of a pony which had been starved and beaten to death. It was alleged to have come from the South-West of England. Mrs. Hamilton refers to allegations that 100 ponies have been put out to grass on 7 acres of marsh, and she also refers to mares foaling in crowded boxes. This letter is not written in extreme terms. She says:
No doubt some of these reports may be exaggerated
but she feels that there is ground for considerable alarm.
I am grateful to the promoters of the Bill, which will go a long way towards allaying the anxieties that many of my constituents feel, because they have observed this transport of ponies month after month. I hope that the Minister will describe what he has seen in Great Yarmouth, which will reassure people who have the misfortune to live in other

ports where this taffic takes place, unless the Minister saw anything untoward.

2.38 p.m.

Mr. Dance: I shall be brief. I also pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Withington (Sir R. Cary). I pay tribute, too, to my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham (Mr. Burden), who has taken over. He has been very courteous and helpful. We all owe him a debt of gratitude. I also thank the Minister for the courtesy that we received from his officials in the Ministry when we saw them the other day. They were very helpful.
Mention has been made of pit ponies. I entirely agree with the view put forward about them, but I would have thought that to some extent the remedy lay with the National Coal Board. If a pony is getting on in years, surely the best way to deal with the problem would be for it to be humanely slaughtered in this country. Perhaps its carcase could then be exported. I do not suggest that we should slaughter young ponies. They would be of use and could have a happy life for some time. But after a pony has reached a certain age it might be best to have it humanely killed.
A word ought to be said about the statement made on Report by the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan), namely, that he had no evidence of any cruelty taking place to ponies in transit. I have here a letter which came up when the Export of Ponies Bill was going through another place. It is rather a terrifying letter, but I do not believe that it is exaggerated.
On Thursday, 20th June, I went on behalf of the above Society to Germany to verify some ponies for their Export Certificates, which were exported to Herr Klaus Wagner of … West Germany. These ponies went from Great Yarmouth either the 17th or the 19th April
This is in 1968.
They were all Welsh mountain ponies, and with the exception of one or two were all in foal. There were 15 in the consignment. One mare foaled in transit, and 6 others within 10 days of arrival. All were in very bad condition on arrival, and the one that had foaled in transit very nearly died. Herr Wagner told me that they were in fact in such a deplorable condition that had he not known a good deal about horses, and knew how to look after them, several would have died.
This is the sort of thing from which we are trying to protect these ponies which we love so much.
Fixing this limit will go some way towards solving the problem. If one pays a reasonable price for a pony for riding or training or for exhibition purposes, one will take more trouble to see that it arrives in a healthy and sound condition than if it is an unfortunate animal which is to end up in some restaurant. I therefore give the Bill the greatest support and hope that it goes through without a Division.

2.42 p.m.

Mr. Alfred Morris: There will be many well-deserved tributes to the hon. Member for Manchester, Withington (Sir R. Cary) who will, I know, be heartened by all that has been said about his industry and dedication in promoting the Bill. As a principal sponsor of the Bill, I warmly acknowledge the work of the hon. Member for Gillingham (Mr. Burden) in difficult circumstances. The Bill could not have made the progress which many of us are happy that it has made without his hard work. He has done a great deal of detailed study. Those who have sponsored the Bill with him would like to extend our appreciation as the debate closes.
It is, of course, very difficult to balance legitimate economic interests against the important claims of animal welfare. The Parliamentary Secretary has contributed greatly to a compromise which both sides of the House and the country should welcome. I am certain that we all owe him also a debt of gratitude.

2.44 p.m.

Sir Cyril Black: I add my support to and welcome for the Bill to the other similar expressions of opinion. I would also like, with real warmth of feeling, to express the gratitude which others have expressed to my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Withington (Sir R. Cary). I am sure that he must tremendously regret that he cannot be with us today, and our thoughts and sympathies should be with him in the deprivation which he thereby suffers. We are also greatly indebted to my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham (Mr. Burden) for having taken on the task of piloting the Bill through the House, which I am sure in a few moments he will bring to a final and triumphant conclusion.
I do not claim to be an expert on the matters with which the Bill deals, but I can claim a twofold constituency interest in them. Of all open spaces within easy reach of the centre of London, Wimbledon Common in my constituency is as widely known as any as a place on which over many years riding and kindred activities have taken place to the great pleasure of the neighbourhood. In particular, there are few more pleasant and delightful scenes than bands of happy children riding on ponies on the tracks provided for the purpose on the premier open space.
This has resulted in a lively interest among my constituents in everything connected with riding, particularly ponies, and a real concern has been aroused in the reports from time to time about the export business which have involved even the suggestion of bad treatment or cruelty to ponies or other animals. This concern is expressed in the form of a large number of letters which I have received from constituents asking me to be sure to give my support to the Bill and to do everything in my power to ensure that it gets on to the Statute Book as early as possible. I have the greatest pleasure in agreeing entirely with my constituents, and I am here today to fulfil my promises to them.
The hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Alfred Morris) referred to the dilemma of the framers and promoters of the Bill in striking the right balance between affording proper protection from cruelty to ponies on the one hand, and, on the other, avoiding unnecessary interference with legitimate commercial interests. It is not always easy to resolve this dilemma, but, in this conflict of interest, the consideration which should ultimately prevail is the welfare of the animals. No commercial or money interest can be argued as a sufficient reason for the House or the nation withholding from ponies or other animals the protection which the circumstances show they need.
Although there may be some doubt as to whether the Bill comes down decisively in every respect on the side of the ponies' welfare. I believe that on the whole it comes down on the right side. About one thing the House need have no doubt—when this Bill gets to the Statute Book it will reduce the volume of cruelty


to ponies, and that is something for which every one of us should be sincerely grateful.
This is an occasion on which the House appears in a very satisfactory light, as an assembly which can turn aside from what some would regard as more weighty matters to ensure the well-being and preservation from cruelty of animals. For this reason, I welcome the Bill and I hope that after my hon. Friend has wound up we shall give it a Third Reading not only without opposition but with enthusiasm.

2.50 p.m.

Mr. Body: I hope that I might be allowed to pay my tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham (Mr. Burden). The law relating to animals can be very intricate, but my hon. Friend has mastered this branch of the law supremely well, and all those who support the Bill are very much indebted to him.
The Bill is an attack on cruelty, and cruelty is the causing of unnecessary suffering. We all recognise that ponies must at some stage be slaughtered, but that act of death should be accompanied by the least amount of suffering. There is no doubt that thousands of ponies which have been shipped across the North Sea to Rotterdam and other ports during the last few years have met their end with a great degree of unnecessary suffering. I say "unnecessary" because we who support the Bill urge that their slaughter should be carried out in this country. That is why we are enthusiastic about the idea of slaughterhouses being built in this country if this form of meat trade must continue.
Some ponies will benefit as a result of the Bill. We have heard about scrub ponies. The market for them will be very much reduced. I have reservations about the Shetland foals which will still be exported. I very much regret the way in which the Bill was mutilated by the acceptance of an Amendment earlier today. This part of the trade will continue, and I fear that the House may one day regret having accepted that Amendment. Perhaps it can be looked at again in another place.
The re-export of some of these animals will not come to an end. This is one of

the most evil parts of the traffic. Some of these ponies have not merely gone to Rotterdam and to other ports and not been slaughtered there, but at the age of four or five months have been re-exported to other countries. They have had to undergo a long and wretched journey before meeting their deaths. I think that the price tag imposed by the Bill will avoid much of the re-export trade.
With those few misgivings, I add my support to the Bill, and I again congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham on all that he has done to get it through the House.

2.54 p.m.

Mr. Burden: I hope that in a few minutes the House will come to a decision and I shall have the pleasure of telephoning my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Withington (Sir R. Cary) to tell him that the Bill in which he has taken such a tremendous interest has gone through the House. I have no doubt that that will be the best tonic that he could possibly want.
I think the House will realise that one of the most important matters raised in support of the Bill was the entirely unexpected issue raised by the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Bagier), when—and he was later supported by his hon. Friends later—he gave us information about ponies belonging to the National Coal Board. The hon. Gentleman told us that 2,000 pit ponies would have to be disposed of by the end of 1970. That emphasises more than anything else that has been said the need for the Bill, because if 2,000 ponies were to be put on to the market without any control or restriction not only would they go abroad for slaughter, but doing that would debase the pony export trade right across the board, and many other ponies would go for slaughter at much lower prices.
We are all greatly concerned about what should happen to the pit ponies, and I hope that the Minister will give us an assurance that as far as possible he will co-operate with the N.C.B. and treat these ponies as a separate subject for consideration. It is clear that there will be a great


deal of feeling in mining communities—and this has been evidenced this after-by speeches of hon. Members from mining constituencies—if it is felt that these ponies will be going abroad for slaughter.
We come back to the point that inevitably at some time in their lives all farm animals are faced with a premature death. We get a tremendous bonus from our farm animals and from the animals which work for us. We therefore have a duty to ensure that while they are alive they are treated as humanely as possible, and that when it is necessary for them to die, they are disposed of as humanely as possible.
The right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) made great play with the petition which had been received from the crofters. The position of the Shetland breeders has been given special consideration. The right hon. Gentleman referred to a petition containing 184 signatures which had been sent to him and to the Minister. But of those 184 signatories only 152 owned any ponies at all, 14 were wives, and two owned unregistered ponies Between them those 184 signatories own only 233 ponies. Let us therefore get this into perspective. These people have been treated this afternoon as a very special case, and if everybody had been absolutely realistic it would have been understood that they should not have been so treated.
The right hon. Gentleman, perhaps unwittingly, made the strongest case for ensuring that ponies and all animals sent from this country should be rested before going abroad and conveyed abroad in ships in proper circumstances. He said that the journey is 250 miles from Aberdeen. We must assume that Aberdeen was the port from which these ponies were despatched abroad after travelling by sea from the island to the mainland and then going across the country in trucks. The Minister made clear that very few ponies go from Scottish ports. They go from Yarmouth. It is a tremendous journey by sea and several hundred miles by land for foals and mares-in-foal.
Is it right that, having travelled those hundreds of miles without proper rest—how can they get proper rest on a bumpy journey by truck and then shoved straight on to shijs? It may be in the middle of winter in shocking conditions and they

would then be transferred from Holland probably to slaughterhouses in Brussels or elsewhere on the Continent. This Bill is needed for purely humanitarian reasons, apart from anything else. By his pleading the right hon. Gentleman reinforced rather than diminished the necessity for it.
It has been stated that the Ministry is not responsible for the lairage which will have to be provided. I think the House is prepared to accept that, but the Bill lays down that that lairage shall be provided. I believe it is provided at present in Yarmouth. The circumstances which lead to the need for lairage, the time spent in travelling, should surely make clear to the Minister that although he may not have direct responsibility for providing it he has responsibility for ensuring that it is provided. The Bill makes that clear.
Despite the Minister's original concern about its original form, we have every hope that he will be able to implement it when it is on the Statute Book. I extend thanks to the members of his Ministry who have been extremely kind and helpful to my colleagues and me. We ask them to implement the Bill in the same spirit in which they discussed it with us. On the way in which it is implemented will depend the success which hon. Members who have supported it hope for. It will depend on instructions sent to Ministry officials whose job it will be to carry out the Bill's intentions. From all I have seen I have no doubt that the Minister and the Ministry will interpret the Bill in the way in which its sponsors wish.
I thank my hon. Friends the Members for Harborough (Mr. Farr), Holland with Boston (Mr. Body), Bromsgrove (Mr. Dance) and New Forest (Mr. Patrick McNair-Wilson) and the hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Alfred Morris) for all the help they have given. I thank the organisations and societies which have provided us with a considerable amount of information. I pay particular tribute to a person who has done a great deal of work behind the scenes in providing information, Miss Glenda Spooner of Ponies of Britain.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

Orders of the Day — DIVORCE REFORM BILL

Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [2nd May], That the Clause (Voluntary restriction of divorce), proposed on Consideration of the Bill, as amended, be read a Second time:—
(1) This section shall apply if before or after marriage the parties thereto have agreed in writing that their marriage shall be a lifelong union dissoluble only by death;
Provided that no particular form of words shall be required for such agreement.
(2) Where a respondent satisfies the court that he and the petitioner have entered into such an agreement as is mentioned in subsection (1) of this section then the court shall not grant a decree of divorce, but shall, if satisfied of the existence of any such fact as is mentioned in paragraphs (a) or (b) of subsection (1) of section 2 of this Act, and if so requested by the petitioner, grant a decree of judicial separation.—[Mr. Bruce Campbell.]

Question again proposed.

3.5 p.m.

Mr. John Farr: Last Friday I was giving a few reasons why I thought that possibly the new Clause was not drafted with the customary precision and exactitude which at least we on this side of the House have learned to associate with my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Bruce Campbell). I illustrated one or two frailties which I thought I could perceive in the new Clause.
There is one weakness which I can detect in the Clause. Before I support it, I should like to know how my hon. and learned Friend proposes to make married couples, and couples who are about to be married, aware of their entitlement in relation to a declaration of permanency. This is a matter of fundamental importance. I am anxious to know what machinery will be put into operation to inform those who can benefit by such a declaration of permanency of their rights. Does my hon. and learned Friend envisage that the best way of communicating this information to the general public—and the general public would have to be informed—is through the newspapers or by printing it on the marriage certificate? If my hon. and learned Friend thinks, as I believe he does judging from the movement of his head just now, that putting it on the marriage certificate would be an adequate way of communicating it, does he feel

that it should be printed on the front of the marriage certificate where it can best be seen by those who sign the certificate as well as those who sign as witnesses?
I am delighted to see the Solicitor-General. He was good enough to be present last Friday. I believe that he is anxious to answer one or two points, and I hope that he will have an opportunity to contribute to the debate.
I cannot understand why my hon. and learned Friend has seen fit to state in line 3 of the new Clause
Provided that no particular form of words shall be required for such agreement"—
"such agreement" being a declaration of marriage permanency. Marriage certificates, birth certificates and certainly death certificates, which are all fairly important documents in our lives, are spelled out in a standard manner. They are printed and completed in a standard way.
There is a lot to be said for having a similar type of standard document readily available for what many married couples will consider to be a vital declaration of permanency. I take it that my hon. and learned Friend, with his legal expertise—I know that he will have given the matter some thought—envisages that a declaration of permanency will be completed on the lines of, perhaps, a will, which is drawn up by a person during his lifetime, which leaves great latitude of scope for variation in its compilation.
With those few words about the Clause, I confirm emphatically that I respect, admire and support the spirit behind it. I congratulate my hon. and learned Friend on his initiative in introducing it to the House. If only he can make it watertight—I believe that it has one or two holes—it will have my unqualified support.

Mr. Daniel Awdry: I wish to make only a short speech because, as a sponsor of the Bill, I naturally would not wish to delay it. I am sorry that I could not be here last Friday. It is difficult for some of us sponsors to be present at the odd times when we have to be here. It would be tragic if owing to procedural difficulties the Bill never got on to the Statute Book.
My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Bruce Campbell) has produced an original new Clause. It was not discussed in Committee on either the present Bill or the previous one. Therefore, it is right that the House should give it careful attention. As one of the sponsors of the Bill, I have, naturally, given it a good deal of thought and I am convinced that it must be rejected.
I will give two reasons. First, I find the concept of a two-tier standard of marriage repulsive. It is impossible to have an élite class of marriage and another class less good. I should like to remind the House of what my hon. and learned Friend said a week ago:
We shall have a sort of élite class of married people, the sort of married people who have not only gone through a marriage ceremony but who have also entered into this little agreement so that they can tell their friends, 'We belong to this rather better class of married people, the sort of married people who regard marriage as a serious lifelong business, not a temporary partnership that one can enter into every few years.'"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 2nd May. 1969; Vol. 782, c. 1833.]
Those were my hon. and learned Friend's words. That is an intolerable statement.
In my view, all couples who get married, whatever their age, genuinely believe that their marriage is to be a lifelong partnership. They do not want a temporary partnership. They want and expect a lifelong union. But people are human. People and circumstances change. Until we get a Utopia, marriages will break down. The Bill accepts that fact of life. The new Clause does not. For that main reason, I reject it.
Secondly, however, I am sure that the Clause would cause terrible injustice. Let us imagine a case where the partners to a marriage draw up the sort of agreement that my hon. and learned Friend has in mind. They sign a piece of paper. I am a lawyer; I do not know whether it would be done in a lawyer's office. Let us assume that the husband turns out to be wholly unsatisfactory—he treats his wife with cruelty, he is mean and unfaithful, he neglects her and is selfish—and the marriage breaks down. Under Clause 2(1,b) of the Bill, the wife can go to court and say that since the celebration of the marriage the respondent has behaved in such a way that the petitioner cannot be expected to live with him. She has her rights.
In that imaginary case, what would the husband do? He would wave in her face a piece of paper, which might have been signed many years before, and say, "Do you remember signing this? No relief for you." Therefore, the wife, who might be totally innocent, would be deprived of her rights.
Has my hon. and learned Friend thought this through? His new Clause would produce intolerable injustice. The sponsors of the Bill are trying to make the divorce law more just. I am certain that a Clause of this kind would do exactly the reverse.

3.15 p.m

Sir Cyril Black: My hon. Friend the Member for Chippenham (Mr. Awdry) has attacked the new Clause for two main reasons neither of which seems to me to be conclusive in reaching a decision on the new Clause. In the first place, he says that it is quite intolerable, in his opinion, that there should be what might be described as two degrees of marriage. May I say to him on that point that this concept is, of course, enshrined in the laws and has been the practice for many years in a number of other countries of the world, so that it is not really perhaps quite such an extraordinary proposition as he would have the House believe.
Secondly, he talked about grave injustices which might arise as a result of the adoption of this new Clause, and he gave an illustration of the kind of injustice which he had in mind, but injustices can, of course, arise in all kinds of circumstances, and in the imperfect world in which we live on this side of eternity it is very unlikely that this House, or, indeed, any other legislative body, will ever be able to introduce a system of law and an organisation of society which in any and every circumstance is free from injustice. The most that anyone can do in this imperfect world is to consider all the factors involved in a case and come to the conclusion as to which course is likely to produce less injustice than any other course.
If I may give my hon. Friend an illustration on the other side, let us take the case of a man who contracts a marriage—and the intention, of course, at the time is, that he is gaining an affectionate and a loving wife with whom


he is entering into a contract which is to last till death them do part—and who makes over a very large amount of his fortune in the form of a marriage settlement for the benefit of his wife to be, and she, to borrow the illustration used by my hon. Friend, turns out to be the very opposite kind of person to the kind of person that he thought he was marrying. Well, in a marriage settlement, how great is the injustice. Not only has he lost a wife but he has also lost at the same time a large amount of his fortune. While contracts of all kinds can work out differently from the expectation of the people who are responsible for them, nobody, surely, would be prepared to enter into wholesale condemnation of the whole system of marriage settlements because of the kind of circumstance which I have described. A marriage settlement might, in the light of subsequent circumstances, turn out to be a very grave injustice upon the man who has irrevocably and for all time parted with a large part of his fortune.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member must link his general observations with the new Clause we are discussing.

Sir C. Black: I will endeavour to do that. I regret that I was getting a little wide of the new Clause. I have concluded, in any case, that part of my speech, and I do not think that the rest of what I have to say can be regarded as wide of the mark.

Mr. Awdry: Can the hon. Member explain how this new Clause helps that particular husband?

Sir C. Black: This new Clause does not help that particular husband. I was merely taking an analogy to show how the risk of injustice is involved in most of the arrangements into which people enter in life. It is not necessarily right to say contracts are bad and should not be entered into because, sometimes, one works out in a way which involves an injustice. That is the point I was endeavouring to make.
To come to what I had wanted to say in reference to this new Clause, I should like to say at once that, in common with a good many other speakers, I do not particularly like parts of this new Clause. I find the idea which is

embodied in the new Clause to be very far from ideal, and I think, in common with other hon. Members—both those who support the new Clause and those who oppose it—that it involves very considerable difficulties.
My difficulty is that I dislike that part of the Bill which the Clause seeks to amend and improve. At the end of the day, having considered the matter with all the disadvantages that I can see in the Clause, I come to the conclusion that if the Bill is to pass into law at all I would regard it as a less damaging and a better Bill with the Clause included in it than it will be if the Clause is rejected. Therefore, somewhat halfheartedly, and certainly without any very great enthusiasm, if the Clause is put to a vote I shall be on the side of those who give support to it.
I agree with those who have spoken about what they regard as the inadequacies of drafting in the Clause. This is always the difficulty of ordinary Members when they seek to draft Amendments and Clauses. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Bruce Campbell), who drafted the Clause, has the advantage of great experience, training and knoweldge in the law. I think that some of my hon. Friends are right in believing that notwithstanding that improvements could be imported into the Clause.
What we therefore want to do—this is what we often have to do in these cases—is to debate the broad principle with which the Clause deals, because if the House decides, as I hope that it will, that the principle of the Clause is right, inadequacies and difficulties of drafting are susceptible of correction in another place. From what my hon. and learned Friend has said I think that he is by no means unwilling to consider any drafting improvements that can be suggested.
In deciding whether the Clause should be incorporated in the Bill, the Clause must be viewed within the context of the Bill itself. No one will dispute—I am sure that the sponsors of the Bill will not dispute—that the Bill makes most drastic changes in the laws of marriage and in the relations of husbands and wives. It is a fact—I think that some of the sponsors of the Bill agree with this—that at present the great majority


of people at any rate—I would not go so far as to say "everybody"—embark upon marriage in the belief that they intend to make it a lifelong arrangement. When they make their declaration—
for better for worse, for richer for poorer, in sickness and in health … till death us do part"—
they honestly and sincerely believe that that is how their marriage relationship will work out.
People today look upon marriage and the obligations of marriage in the context of what has been the law of Britain over many years, as embodied in the marriage service. If the Bill becomes an Act and in 25 years' time a new generation has become acclimatised to the lighter view of marriage vows which the Bill embodies, people will not take this solemn and serious view of marriage obligations.
The whole point of the Clause is that if there continue to be people with deep religious convictions whose belief is—and they hold this with a burning sincerity—that marriage is and always ought to be a lifelong bond between a man and a woman that only death can end, what right has the House to say to such people, "You can no longer enter into this kind of lifelong arrangement under the law because we are not prepared to uphold your right to enter into a lifelong contract of that kind"?
It is to deal with that section of the public, not the whole public, that takes this stronger view of marriage that the new Clause is designed. A person entering into matrimony does so more or less certain under the present law of one fact—that if he does not commit a matrimonial offence he cannot be involved in a divorce which is one in which he is unwilling to participate and to which he is unwilling to agree. A person married under present law has security in that, if he properly fulfils the obligations into which he has entered he cannot find himself an unwilling and reluctant participant in divorce proceedings, with all that divorce proceedings involve.
But that position would immediately go by the board under the Bill. Nobody any longer would have that kind of security. A man or woman entering marriage would have no certainty that if his conduct was entirely blameless and gave no cause for offence he would

not in five years' time find himself in the divorce court with the other party—the guilty party—as the plaintiff, as it were, and a divorce in certain circumstances imposed upon him not only against his will but against his deeply cherished religious beliefs.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I gather that the hon. Gentleman does not like the Bill, but he will make that point on Third Reading. He must now come to new Clause 9.

Sir C. Black: I apologise, Mr. Speaker, if I am wandering somewhat wide of the mark, but I want to emphasise the great change in the law that the Bill would bring about and why it is necessary to have new Clause 9 in order to ensure some protection for those who still want to enter into marriage on a lifetime basis. I see no reason why the parties to a marriage, with their eyes open and with the knowledge of what is involved, should not have the right to say under the protection of the law, "We prefer to marry under the old rules and not under the new rules. We happen to believe with conviction in the binding character of our marriage vows." Why should the State refuse to uphold such a marriage contract freely entered into between two willing and consenting partners?
I want to put this next part of my speech in a way which I hope will not cause offence to anyone. It is a fact that by no means all but many of the sponsors and supporters of the Bill, who desire to affect so drastically the marriage laws, hold humanist opinions rather than Christian convictions. It is no part of my wish to criticise their views.

Mr. Alec Jones: I hope the hon. Gentleman will take my assurance that I hold very strong Christian beliefs. As the principal sponsor of the Bill, I want to make that clear.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The question of Christian or humanist views has nothing to do with new Clause 9. The hon. Member for Wimbledon (Sir C. Black) is an old Parliamentarian. He must now speak to new Clause 9.

Mr. W. A. Wilkins (Bristol, South): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Earlier in the speech of the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Sir C. Black) you intervened


to say that that part of it was more relevant to Third Reading. In your provisional selection of Amendments, you have included Amendment No. 10, upon which it would appear to me that we would be able to make speeches of the kind the hon. Member is making.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I have enough to do at the moment to confine the debate to that with which we are now dealing. When we come to Amendment No. 10 I will rule on that.

Sir C. Black: I can sum up by saying that people who wish to enter into marriage as a lifelong bond should not be denied that right under the Bill. If the new Clause were accepted, two people contemplating marriage could of their own free will enter into a contract which would not be imposed upon those who did not wish to enter into it, but would be available under the protection of the law to those who did.
I hope that, with such difficulties and imperfections as there may be in the Amendment, nevertheless we shall decide on balance that it is wise and worth while to incorporate it in the Bill.

3.30 p.m.

Mr. Simon Mahon: I intervene briefly to appeal to the sponsors of the Bill to show a reasonable attitude towards those who oppose it.
The Amendment deals with a matter which is, I think, accepted by the majority of people. No one contemplating marriage would consider it in any other way than that proposed in the Amendment. What young woman would go to the altar rail or to the registry office to be married if she was not certain at the time that it was to be a lifelong union? We all remember when we were young and the vows that we took. Most of us took them after very serious consideration, even though we may have been head over heels in love, as most of us were. Had we not given grave consideration to marriage, it would have been quite out of character. We are a nation of people who have been brought up to think in that way. Christian attitudes have taught us responsibility in all matters.
As children, no doubt we did many wrong things. That is very natural. As

we grow older, we ask our consciences if we are doing right, and when we go into marriage we know precisely what we are doing.
The overwhelming majority of people would find the Clause eminently reasonable. I think that most people would say on their wedding days, "This is for life". We are individuals. Some of us believe that not only is marriage a sacrament but that we are made in God's image and likeness. If we are not, in whose likeness are we made? Some of us feel that that gives us a personal dignity and, from it, an attitude of responsibility to do the right thing. Of course, occasionally we fall by the wayside, and some of us believe in original sin. Those who do not believe had better try to understand that—

Mr. Speaker: Order. We are getting into deep theological waters at the moment.

Mr. Mahon: I agree. That is what happens when one follows these lines of argument through.
I should like to follow a more practical line to which I am sure that you, Mr. Speaker, will not take offence. The hon. Gentleman mentioned the Utopian attitude of the people who were creating the new élite. No hon. Member has more respect for Mr. Speaker than I have, but one of his predecessors was the emblem of happy married family life and he wrote "Utopia". Yet all his life he was the epitome of what we are asking for in the Clause—that marriage should be dissoluble only by death.
I take exception to creating an élite in marriage if the Clause goes through. I suggest to the hon. Gentleman—

Mr. Awdry: The expression "élite" was put forward by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Bruce Campbell) in moving the Amendment. He described it in those terms, not me.

Mr. Mahon: The hon. Gentleman used the word "élite", and I am following his argument. I suggest this is not the élite at all. If we refuse to listen to the reasonable argument of the hon. and learned Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Bruce Campbell) and the Bill is passed without the new Clause being inserted, it will be creating the new élite. We have


already agreed that people can tell lies. The people who can tell lies are the new élite—

Mr. Speaker: Order. That debate is over.

Mr. Mahon: We have dealt with that aspect of it. But when people use these words so loosely and say that such a reasonable argument as is displayed here would create a new élite, I submit that this is not an élite; this is the whole basis of our nation. The family life of our nation is here displayed in this reasonable new Clause for which we are asking. Whether people are rich or poor they can follow it. One of the nice things about marriage is that, whether people are rich or poor, in sickness or in health, they can take these vows and they have a common denominator with Her Majesty the Queen and with the richest person in this country. The fact that they take these vows maintains the personal dignity of every boy and girl who gets married. It gives us a great family feeling.
If the promoters of the Bill will not be reasonable about it, I suggest that the Government should make up their mind to give it no more time.

Mrs. Jill Knight: I am sure that my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Oldham West (Mr. Bruce Campbell) will be the first to admit that the new Clause is merely an attempt to make the best of a very bad job. My hon. and learned Friend's immense knowledge and understanding of divorce problems infinitely surpasses that of most hon. Members in this House, because of the nature of his profession and the years that he has spent following it. His vast experience merits our closest attention to the advice that he gives to all in this House on these matters.
If I knew nothing about the new Clause, the simple fact that my hon. and learned Friend proposes it and is joined by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Chertsey (Sir L. Heald) would bring me into the Lobby in support of it. But I know something about the new Clause. I have endeavoured to inform myself most fully. I have read the debate on the new Clause that took place last week. If the new Clause stood in isolation and as a new principle to be

applied when people got married, I could not possibly support it.
I should not be in favour of an elite marriage, or a two-tier marriage as it was referred to last week if things were not as they are. If the Government, who have brought in so much permissive legislation during this Parliament, give their blessing to the Bill it will get through the House, and this Clause will be necessary to provide some people with relief from the grave injustice of paragraph (e) of Clause 2.
I read the speech of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Oldham, West last week, and several of the points that he made in support of the Clause impressed me very much. When he said:
The purpose of the Clause is to enable people, if they wish, to enter into a marriage which shall last for their joint lives and shall be indissoluble by the courts",
I immediately felt my ears prick up, and when he said:
People in this country think seriously about marriage. There are still many people who think of marriage as a holy institution, and take seriously the vows they make when they enter into that institution."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 2nd May, 1969; Vol. 792, c. 1829.] he had me with him anyway.
The Bill as a whole has no truck with the view. Marriage is no longer to be a serious or a responsible matter, or at any rate its seriousness and its responsibility are to be drastically reduced if the Measure gets through. Why, then, should even the sponsors of the Bill object to some people being allowed to consider marriage as a life-long contract? I see nothing in the Clause which would force people to sign a declaration when they were married. It would be entirely voluntary. It would be up to them to decide whether they wished to do so. No one would force them to do so.
For some people, it may be a matter of ridicule that there still exist in Britain today persons who believe in the importance to society of marriage remaining a stable institution, but there are such people. Why should they not be able to opt out from the paper bag marriage? This is imposing the views of the sponsors of the Bill on everyone who gets married. The new Clause recognises that that is unfair, that some people who wish to do so should be allowed to contract out


of the notion that marriage is an easily dissoluble institution.

Mr. Farr: Did my hon. Friend refer to a paper back marriage?

Mrs. Knight: I referred to a paper bag marriage.

Mr. Farr: I am still no wiser. Can my hon. Friend describe that?

Mr. Speaker: Order. It is not in order to intervene to examine the metaphors which other hon. Members use.

Mrs. Knight: I am sorry to have mystified my hon. Friend. I merely mean the kind of marriage which it is easy to get out of.
It is true that people change their minds. When people start out on a life together they may have every intention of making it a permanent marriage, but they then find that they cannot after all, for one reason, or for many. They may have signed this declaration at the outset with every intention of keeping to it, but if they find that they cannot, they will not, as I understand it, have to adhere to the agreement. Is it not to be a binding agreement after all? "Yes", so long as both partners want it to be, "No", when both partners want it not to be. I think that that sums up the intention behind the Clause.
The Clause is a rather ingenious way of alleviating the frightful injustice to a totally innocent person being divorced against his or her will. There should be a way of alleviating such a monstrous thing. The Clause is not perfect, but it is the best way to keep a portion of the stable door secure.
In his speech last week the hon. Member for Rhondda, West (Mr. Alec Jones)—and I extend my sympathy to him if he found himself in trouble with the Postmaster-General for the rude remarks that he made about the two-tier system—the hon. Gentleman seems to have missed the point behind the Clause. He said that no married people who want to keep their marriage "until death us do part" need ever have recourse to the divorce court. The Bill does not force people to get divorced, any more than the Clause would force them to stay married when they have no wish to remain married. The situation is quite

clear; if Parliament forces the Bill upon the people and denigrates the status of marriage some protection must be given to people who regard it as a deplorable state of affairs.
3.45 p.m.
My hon. Friend the Member for Chippenham (Mr. Awdry) said that the sponsors of the Bill were trying to make the situation more just. I cannot see that it would be anything less just than to force a totally innocent partner to be divorced against his or her will. That is why I feel so strongly that if the Bill goes through the Clause should be accepted.
If the Clause were accepted the same sort of situation would be created as that which has arisen in Iraq, when the Shah attempted to end the law that allowed a man to have four wives. The religion of the country held that this was quite reasonable and the Shah, being a wise man, did not attempt to suggest that that was wrong. All he did was to say, "By all means have four wives, so long as before your second, third and fourth wives actually become married to you a signed declaration is forthcoming from the first wife that she has no objection to the arrangement". I understand that that has almost stopped the practice of Persian men having four wives. This Clause may well narrow the effect of the Bill. That would not be a bad thing, and I see no reason why I should withhold my support for the Clause.

Mr. Peter Mahon: No thinking person can be happy about the state of marriage as it exists in England today—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am reminded that the hon. Member for Preston, South (Mr. Peter Mahon) spoke in this debate last week. Much as I respect him, I must point out that it is not in order for an hon. Member to address the House twice on Report, no matter how keenly he may feel about the subject under discussion.

Mr. Mahon: I accept your ruling, graciously, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. John Biggs-Davison: I regret that we cannot hear again from the hon. Member. We always listen to him with the greatest delight. I shall


not speak for more than a few minutes because the points have been well brought out in the speeches delivered both today and on an earlier occasion.
The Clause as it stands is not satisfactory, but it is a device; it is an attempt to deal with a clear injustice under the Bill. All fair-minded hon. Members—and I believe that we are all fair-minded—will recognise that this is an injustice, whatever may be their view of marriage. We have often been told that it is not for Christians or people of a certain religious denomination, or with a certain view of marriage, to attempt to impose their opinions upon their fellow-subjects who do not share their convictions, by legislation or by withholding their assent to legislation. I see the force of that argument.
On the other hand, it is scarcely for the Legislature, in what is constitutionally still a Christian country, to impose a secularist view of marriage on those who hold to the doctrine of matrimony prevalent in Western Christendom.

Mr. Speaker: Order. This is a criticism, the hon. Member's opinion of the Bill itself. We are discussing the new Clause.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for putting me right. I was trying to say that we have understood the argument that we should not try to impose our views on those who do not share them, but Clause 2(1)(e) will impose a secularist view of marriage on those who hold—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am not questioning the hon. Gentleman's right to an opinion on the Bill, but he should express his opinion at an appropriate stage—on Second Reading or Third Reading. We cannot, on each Amendment, traverse the whole case against the Bill. The hon. Gentleman will see that the new Clause introduces a new feature and it is that new feature which he must defend or attack.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: Yes, Sir, and the purpose of this new feature is to put right this injustice. Under the Bill as it stands, a spouse for whom marriage is not merely a contract—contracts should be observed—but a sacramental engagement, can be forced into a breach of that sacaramental obligation. It is to

right that injustice that my hon. and learned Friend has put down the new Clause and I warmly support his effort, although I recognise that it is not a satisfactory way of dealing with the problem.
The hon. Member for Rhondda, West (Mr. Alec Jones) said earlier that he too held Christian views, and we respect them, so he would be the first to understand our problem. I hope that he will tell us something which will help to remove this fear. Perhaps he can take advice from the Solicitor-General. I hope that something will be done to meet this genuine anxiety that there will be a gross injustice in the Bill—although there might be better ways of removing it.

3.53 p.m.

Dame Irene Ward: I thought at first that some peculiar situations might develop as a result of the new Clause, so I listened with great attention to the debate before making up my mind whether to support it. I have concluded that it is very wise, particularly because its use will be entirely voluntary. I cannot see why the House should object to including in a difficult and controversial Bill a Clause providing for an aspect of marriage which has been part of our law for many centuries. I cannot see why the sponsors should object.
My hon. Friend the Member for Chippenham (Mr. Awdry) is very dogmatic, but why should the House accept dogmatic views from the sponsors of the Bill and refuse to accept strongly held views to the contrary put forward by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Bruce Campbell)? How long it will last it is difficult to say, but at present we have a free House of Commons.
If the Clause were embodied in the Bill, those entering into marriage would survey the whole field of marriage, having regard to the basic new proposal in the Bill, and would conclude that it might be wise to have the protection which is implicit in the Clause and which would enable them as individuals to protect their interests having regard to the wider implications which I should be out of order in discussing now.
When my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr) asked how the


Clause would be dealt with from a legal point of view, the Solicitor-General should have jumped to his feet and evinced a great desire to guide the House. As the hon. and Learned Gentleman sits on the fence all the time, on this occasion he was not going to fall off to either one side or the other and commit himself. However, the Solicitor-General has a substantial job, which is to guide the House in law. A very distinguished and learned Gentleman has tabled a new Clause about whose legal effects my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough asked a question. But the Solicitor-General solemnly sits there and does not use this great opportunity; nor does he accept the responsibility of his job and advise the House.
Neither my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough nor I is a lawyer. We are two babes in the wilderness wanting guidance from the Solicitor-General.

Mr. Farr: It is a privilege to be a babe in the wilderness with my hon. Friend.

Mr. Speaker: Order. This debate is becoming too intimate.

Dame Irene Ward: It is a fascinating subject. I am not discussing the position of my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough and myself, but what on earth was the good of the Solicitor-General, nice though he is, sitting there with all his legal knowledge and not giving people like my hon. Friend and myself the benefit of his advice?
I can see the practical difficulties of implementing the Clause. However, I am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Oldham, West for trying to improve the Bill. I do not want to have to make another speech on this subject next week, so I say in conclusion that on consideration I should support the new Clause.

Mr. Hugh Delargy: I agree that the House should—

It being Four o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

Debate to be resumed upon Friday next.

Orders of the Day — BETTING, GAMING AND LOTTERIES (AMENDMENT) BILL [Lords]

Considered in Committee; reported, without Amendment; read the Third time and passed, without Amendment.

Orders of the Day — JURY VERDICTS (SCOTLAND) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday next.

Orders of the Day — CONTRACTS OF EMPLOYMENT BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday next.

Orders of the Day — MENTAL HEALTH ACT 1959 (AMENDMENT) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday next.

Orders of the Day — ESTATE DUTY (SURVIVING SPOUSE) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday next.

Orders of the Day — SALE OF TICKETS (OFFENCES) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday, 13th June.

Orders of the Day — BRITISH STANDARD TIME ACT (REPEAL) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday next.

Orders of the Day — LIVE HARE COURSING (ABOLITION) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday next.

Orders of the Day — AGRICULTURAL TRAINING BOARD (ABOLITION) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday next.

Orders of the Day — CRUELTY TO ANIMALS BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday next.

Orders of the Day — CUSTOMARY HOLIDAYS BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday next.

Orders of the Day — HOUSING (LOCAL AUTHORITY CONTRIBUTIONS) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday next.

Orders of the Day — PARLIAMENT (No. 4) BILL

Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Second Reading [18th April].

Hon. Members: Object.

Debate further adjourned till Friday next.

Orders of the Day — HOUSE OF COMMONS REDISTRIBUTION OF SEATS (AMENDMENT) BILL

Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Second Reading [21st March].

Hon. Members: Object.

Debate further adjourned till Friday next.

Orders of the Day — AGE LEVEL OF EMPLOYMENT BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday next.

Orders of the Day — FEUDAL REFORM (SCOTLAND) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday next.

Orders of the Day — PERIODICAL PUBLICATIONS (PROTECTION OF SUBSCRIBERS) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday next.

Orders of the Day — PROTECTION FROM DOGS BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday next.

Orders of the Day — EXPANSION OF NEW TOWNS (REFERENDUM) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday next.

Orders of the Day — WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION AND BENEFIT (AMENDMENT) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday next.

Orders of the Day — NATIONAL INSURANCE (INDUSTRIAL INJURIES) (AMENDMENT) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday next.

Orders of the Day — BORDERS DEVELOPMENT (SCOTLAND) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday next.

Orders of the Day — RENT ACT 1968 (AMENDMENT) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday next.

Orders of the Day — HIGHWAYS (STRAYING ANIMALS) (No. 2) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday next.

Orders of the Day — ORGAN TRANSPLANTS BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday next.

Orders of the Day — CRUELTY TO ANIMALS ACT 1876 (AMENDMENT) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday next.

Orders of the Day — ROAD TRAFFIC (INSURANCE) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday next.

Orders of the Day — OBSCENE PUBLICATIONS (AMENDMENT) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday next.

Orders of the Day — FREE SPEECH COMMISSION BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday next.

ADJOURNMENT

Resolved, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Ernest G. Perry.]

Adjourned accordingly at five minutes past Four o'clock.